Production M390 - Expectation vs Reality?

knifeswapper said:
Back a few posts there was a response to Mo2 that included some rebut of nearly every point he made. I can add some clarity to those as well.

False: First post was Mike insinuating that they did an hrc test on the blade edge. Of which wasn't true.
True: If you read the referenced post, you will understand that I am referring to knives that I sent to Peters previously - not those that Kurt took. My post was well before Kurt even went to Peters.

False: The 2nd to last paragraph in particular in the latest post are a bit disingenious. Saying he would have to hunt down posts. And then next calling out one comment about paint chips, which is in reference to running the test.
True: Already addressed by someone that read my statement without preconceptions; but just to verify: There were many vicious trolls on instagram that attacked anyone requesting a measured testing methodology or questioning the process used. Many of the trolls prompted responses by those on the testing team, to include Kurt, that made some statements in hindsight seem ill advised. So, it would be much easier to just remove the account than to hunt them down. But this was speculation on my part, I don't know why he removed the IG account. But in one particularly vicious attack by trolls on a customer of mine that only recommended third party verification, I copy/pasted the entire exchange and that is where I quoted Kurt's response to the care that need be taken with equipment that will be used to make commercial claims.

False: It's not hard, many knife makers get an aim's Hardness tester and read the directions. You don't need to be an expert to run an hrc test.
True: It's not hard to test for private use. But when you are going to test to call a manufacture incompetent or challenge their specifications, you probably need to do more than read a manual. For example, documents are found rather easily that say never test within 3 diameters of another test / edge / anomaly. Yet you can clearly see the shuffler has been tested at least twice within 3 diameters of another test.

False: If Mike was at Peter's, he would have known that they compared methods of running the test and calibration with Peter's and nothing is different in the methods. Not to mention they tested other knives that got the same results with on both machines. But Mike wouldn't know that, cause he wasn't there.
True: I wasn't there. But I am the one that introduced Kurt and Brad. I am the one that setup the verification with an agreement that I would be provided the results pertinent to the knives which I was invested. My conversation with Brad does not reconcile with your statement. First off, there is no way that any shop's testing / calibration methods compare with Brad's. Every morning at open they test a NIST 30, 40, 50, and 6X (don't recall if it was 61, etc.) block 3 times on each of their 3 machines. That is 36 tests just to open the shop each day. Calibration is done at any time these do not provide expected results, but never any later than the industry standard calibration dates (calibration is done by a 3rd party).
It is expected that they would match on some results. Sadly very few testing methodologies allow for "a finite number of unexplained inconsistencies".
I have had several long conversations with Brad. He is the most detailed and genuine person I have ever talked to in this expertise. For example, on their testing equipment it takes 8/10000ths of inch of to drop the hrc result by 1 point. Thus by my calculation that means a 50micron particle of dust would provide a reading up to 3 points off. When that type of precision is required, I want someone doing more that just buying themselves a tester and reading the manual (as is suggested) if they were going to challenge commercial results.

False: Yet Mike's making it seem like this anomaly makes all these tests invalid, of which does not. Then he goes and says how his work place must have all the wrong numbers...
True: No, quite the opposite. I think most of the results were probably correct. But it is a science, and especially when you are going to go after a companies livelihood with commercial claims. They had readings that any industry expert could spot as highly questionable. For example, I asked Brad how likely it was to get 4-6 different readings on 1 square inch of a blade tang. His response was that in 36 years he has never seen a variance of more than a point or two inside that amount of space. There can be false low numbers for many reasons - false high numbers are an entirely different issue. Once that shuffler received a 58 test, a big red light should have started flashing. Any testing methodology that is going to expect the respect of the industry is going to need to be easily reproducible by peer testing experts. And if you are putting out even one number that is proven patently incorrect - then the entire methodology has to be re-evaluated.

Opinion: Besides all of this, it's just two knives. Ignorant people blew it out of proportion based off of what someone like Ltk said in his video. Of which is apparently corrected and he's apologized.
Differing Opinion: To LTK is was just two knives. To me it was the total sum of EVERY knife from my modern traditional series that EVER tested outside of factory specifications. We wasted many blades testing to try and find the anomaly. But the only two we had ever seen tested low were by one person.
I think anyone that saw the videos knows it was more than a passing mention. It was the poster boys of the pitch that was being sold. LTK kept adding to his original mention with statements like he would "stand on" these results. When what I said about "headaches" was interpreted to be a legal threat, he said "bring it on". Now, he is a good guy and comments look much different in hindsight many times than they do at the point in time where you are certain that you are right. But I will point out that in his "giveaway" video, that was posted Saturday after Kurt had retested the dom himself to within specs and then taken to Peters and got four identical readings of 59.1hrc, he doubled down on the old readings but started broadening the conversation away from simple hrc readings that had been the backbone of all previous videos. Making no mention of any updates to include new readings. That was when I was compelled to make my first post since the ill advised post on the original video.

Regarding the comment about taking a blade out of the frame for testing. That was mentioned in my response to the first youtube video wherein I was discussing the knives I had sent for testing. Those knives also included a sample from the "Bolus" series which does not have nearly as much tang exposed. Brad called me to ask if he could remove it from the frame to insure a valid test. I am in no position to question him on this point.

I think Lee and Kurt are good people. I don't think they set out to have this thing blossom like it did. But there was not enough management of the situation to insure it would not turn out like it did. Lee is very "excitable" in his videos. And he drew a large crowd of folks that had no concern for what the publicity would do to the other folks involved. I did not go on a witch hunt. I kept my mouth shut for two weeks while the facts came out and only when it appeared as if those known results were not going to be offered by the testing team - I responded with a differing view on a more neutral youtube channel.

Before moving back to Oklahoma to help my parents after a terminal diagnosis for my father, I had a highly technical career. Which also included working with / for government contractors. My background and my mindset is analytical. Thus I see things differently than many. But, although I love to have conversations with the members on BF as well as other platforms - I hate controversy. Many times I play the devil's advocate and many times there are disagreements. But many times these controversy come up on social media that would never have come up with folks having a civilized conversation face to face.

There is no way for me to express how much this situation has stressed me over the last couple weeks. But to be honest, in the last week we have had personal events that leave it nearly just banter. Not that the stress has resided any, but that I never realized how much stress a person would have to endure sometimes in God's path for us. I know when you put yourself into the public eye, you open yourself up to being called a liar, a crook, etc. etc. But I would simply ask, for me, and recommend for everyone else reading - just take the time to approach a person like you would your neighbor at the picket fence on these kinds of issues. There are so many things that unite us and so few that divide us.
Click to expand...
The modern traditional series is a fantastic idea that's been well executed. Every interaction I've seen you have or had with you has been highly professional even when I screwed up on an order. I'm sincerely hoping this nonsense doesn't have any long term effect on your well being or your business.
 
knifeswapper said:
Back a few posts there was a response to Mo2 that included some rebut of nearly every point he made. I can add some clarity to those as well.

False: First post was Mike insinuating that they did an hrc test on the blade edge. Of which wasn't true.
True: If you read the referenced post, you will understand that I am referring to knives that I sent to Peters previously - not those that Kurt took. My post was well before Kurt even went to Peters.

False: The 2nd to last paragraph in particular in the latest post are a bit disingenious. Saying he would have to hunt down posts. And then next calling out one comment about paint chips, which is in reference to running the test.
True: Already addressed by someone that read my statement without preconceptions; but just to verify: There were many vicious trolls on instagram that attacked anyone requesting a measured testing methodology or questioning the process used. Many of the trolls prompted responses by those on the testing team, to include Kurt, that made some statements in hindsight seem ill advised. So, it would be much easier to just remove the account than to hunt them down. But this was speculation on my part, I don't know why he removed the IG account. But in one particularly vicious attack by trolls on a customer of mine that only recommended third party verification, I copy/pasted the entire exchange and that is where I quoted Kurt's response to the care that need be taken with equipment that will be used to make commercial claims.

False: It's not hard, many knife makers get an aim's Hardness tester and read the directions. You don't need to be an expert to run an hrc test.
True: It's not hard to test for private use. But when you are going to test to call a manufacture incompetent or challenge their specifications, you probably need to do more than read a manual. For example, documents are found rather easily that say never test within 3 diameters of another test / edge / anomaly. Yet you can clearly see the shuffler has been tested at least twice within 3 diameters of another test.

False: If Mike was at Peter's, he would have known that they compared methods of running the test and calibration with Peter's and nothing is different in the methods. Not to mention they tested other knives that got the same results with on both machines. But Mike wouldn't know that, cause he wasn't there.
True: I wasn't there. But I am the one that introduced Kurt and Brad. I am the one that setup the verification with an agreement that I would be provided the results pertinent to the knives which I was invested. My conversation with Brad does not reconcile with your statement. First off, there is no way that any shop's testing / calibration methods compare with Brad's. Every morning at open they test a NIST 30, 40, 50, and 6X (don't recall if it was 61, etc.) block 3 times on each of their 3 machines. That is 36 tests just to open the shop each day. Calibration is done at any time these do not provide expected results, but never any later than the industry standard calibration dates (calibration is done by a 3rd party).
It is expected that they would match on some results. Sadly very few testing methodologies allow for "a finite number of unexplained inconsistencies".
I have had several long conversations with Brad. He is the most detailed and genuine person I have ever talked to in this expertise. For example, on their testing equipment it takes 8/10000ths of inch of to drop the hrc result by 1 point. Thus by my calculation that means a 50micron particle of dust would provide a reading up to 3 points off. When that type of precision is required, I want someone doing more that just buying themselves a tester and reading the manual (as is suggested) if they were going to challenge commercial results.

False: Yet Mike's making it seem like this anomaly makes all these tests invalid, of which does not. Then he goes and says how his work place must have all the wrong numbers...
True: No, quite the opposite. I think most of the results were probably correct. But it is a science, and especially when you are going to go after a companies livelihood with commercial claims. They had readings that any industry expert could spot as highly questionable. For example, I asked Brad how likely it was to get 4-6 different readings on 1 square inch of a blade tang. His response was that in 36 years he has never seen a variance of more than a point or two inside that amount of space. There can be false low numbers for many reasons - false high numbers are an entirely different issue. Once that shuffler received a 58 test, a big red light should have started flashing. Any testing methodology that is going to expect the respect of the industry is going to need to be easily reproducible by peer testing experts. And if you are putting out even one number that is proven patently incorrect - then the entire methodology has to be re-evaluated.

Opinion: Besides all of this, it's just two knives. Ignorant people blew it out of proportion based off of what someone like Ltk said in his video. Of which is apparently corrected and he's apologized.
Differing Opinion: To LTK is was just two knives. To me it was the total sum of EVERY knife from my modern traditional series that EVER tested outside of factory specifications. We wasted many blades testing to try and find the anomaly. But the only two we had ever seen tested low were by one person.
I think anyone that saw the videos knows it was more than a passing mention. It was the poster boys of the pitch that was being sold. LTK kept adding to his original mention with statements like he would "stand on" these results. When what I said about "headaches" was interpreted to be a legal threat, he said "bring it on". Now, he is a good guy and comments look much different in hindsight many times than they do at the point in time where you are certain that you are right. But I will point out that in his "giveaway" video, that was posted Saturday after Kurt had retested the dom himself to within specs and then taken to Peters and got four identical readings of 59.1hrc, he doubled down on the old readings but started broadening the conversation away from simple hrc readings that had been the backbone of all previous videos. Making no mention of any updates to include new readings. That was when I was compelled to make my first post since the ill advised post on the original video.

Regarding the comment about taking a blade out of the frame for testing. That was mentioned in my response to the first youtube video wherein I was discussing the knives I had sent for testing. Those knives also included a sample from the "Bolus" series which does not have nearly as much tang exposed. Brad called me to ask if he could remove it from the frame to insure a valid test. I am in no position to question him on this point.

I think Lee and Kurt are good people. I don't think they set out to have this thing blossom like it did. But there was not enough management of the situation to insure it would not turn out like it did. Lee is very "excitable" in his videos. And he drew a large crowd of folks that had no concern for what the publicity would do to the other folks involved. I did not go on a witch hunt. I kept my mouth shut for two weeks while the facts came out and only when it appeared as if those known results were not going to be offered by the testing team - I responded with a differing view on a more neutral youtube channel.

Before moving back to Oklahoma to help my parents after a terminal diagnosis for my father, I had a highly technical career. Which also included working with / for government contractors. My background and my mindset is analytical. Thus I see things differently than many. But, although I love to have conversations with the members on BF as well as other platforms - I hate controversy. Many times I play the devil's advocate and many times there are disagreements. But many times these controversy come up on social media that would never have come up with folks having a civilized conversation face to face.

There is no way for me to express how much this situation has stressed me over the last couple weeks. But to be honest, in the last week we have had personal events that leave it nearly just banter. Not that the stress has resided any, but that I never realized how much stress a person would have to endure sometimes in God's path for us. I know when you put yourself into the public eye, you open yourself up to being called a liar, a crook, etc. etc. But I would simply ask, for me, and recommend for everyone else reading - just take the time to approach a person like you would your neighbor at the picket fence on these kinds of issues. There are so many things that unite us and so few that divide us.
Click to expand...

Your attitude on the situation is commendable. I can't imagine what this debacle has cost you in sales of knives that were never defective. We can discuss the difference between 59 and 61 rc, but the steel doesn't become junk at 59 rc and the knives are quality.

That Barlow Lionsteel is back on the list. I hope that's true for lots of others.
 
knifeswapper said:
Back a few posts there was a response to Mo2 that included some rebut of nearly every point he made. I can add some clarity to those as well.

False: First post was Mike insinuating that they did an hrc test on the blade edge. Of which wasn't true.
True: If you read the referenced post, you will understand that I am referring to knives that I sent to Peters previously - not those that Kurt took. My post was well before Kurt even went to Peters.

False: The 2nd to last paragraph in particular in the latest post are a bit disingenious. Saying he would have to hunt down posts. And then next calling out one comment about paint chips, which is in reference to running the test.
True: Already addressed by someone that read my statement without preconceptions; but just to verify: There were many vicious trolls on instagram that attacked anyone requesting a measured testing methodology or questioning the process used. Many of the trolls prompted responses by those on the testing team, to include Kurt, that made some statements in hindsight seem ill advised. So, it would be much easier to just remove the account than to hunt them down. But this was speculation on my part, I don't know why he removed the IG account. But in one particularly vicious attack by trolls on a customer of mine that only recommended third party verification, I copy/pasted the entire exchange and that is where I quoted Kurt's response to the care that need be taken with equipment that will be used to make commercial claims.

False: It's not hard, many knife makers get an aim's Hardness tester and read the directions. You don't need to be an expert to run an hrc test.
True: It's not hard to test for private use. But when you are going to test to call a manufacture incompetent or challenge their specifications, you probably need to do more than read a manual. For example, documents are found rather easily that say never test within 3 diameters of another test / edge / anomaly. Yet you can clearly see the shuffler has been tested at least twice within 3 diameters of another test.

False: If Mike was at Peter's, he would have known that they compared methods of running the test and calibration with Peter's and nothing is different in the methods. Not to mention they tested other knives that got the same results with on both machines. But Mike wouldn't know that, cause he wasn't there.
True: I wasn't there. But I am the one that introduced Kurt and Brad. I am the one that setup the verification with an agreement that I would be provided the results pertinent to the knives which I was invested. My conversation with Brad does not reconcile with your statement. First off, there is no way that any shop's testing / calibration methods compare with Brad's. Every morning at open they test a NIST 30, 40, 50, and 6X (don't recall if it was 61, etc.) block 3 times on each of their 3 machines. That is 36 tests just to open the shop each day. Calibration is done at any time these do not provide expected results, but never any later than the industry standard calibration dates (calibration is done by a 3rd party).
It is expected that they would match on some results. Sadly very few testing methodologies allow for "a finite number of unexplained inconsistencies".
I have had several long conversations with Brad. He is the most detailed and genuine person I have ever talked to in this expertise. For example, on their testing equipment it takes 8/10000ths of inch of to drop the hrc result by 1 point. Thus by my calculation that means a 50micron particle of dust would provide a reading up to 3 points off. When that type of precision is required, I want someone doing more that just buying themselves a tester and reading the manual (as is suggested) if they were going to challenge commercial results.

False: Yet Mike's making it seem like this anomaly makes all these tests invalid, of which does not. Then he goes and says how his work place must have all the wrong numbers...
True: No, quite the opposite. I think most of the results were probably correct. But it is a science, and especially when you are going to go after a companies livelihood with commercial claims. They had readings that any industry expert could spot as highly questionable. For example, I asked Brad how likely it was to get 4-6 different readings on 1 square inch of a blade tang. His response was that in 36 years he has never seen a variance of more than a point or two inside that amount of space. There can be false low numbers for many reasons - false high numbers are an entirely different issue. Once that shuffler received a 58 test, a big red light should have started flashing. Any testing methodology that is going to expect the respect of the industry is going to need to be easily reproducible by peer testing experts. And if you are putting out even one number that is proven patently incorrect - then the entire methodology has to be re-evaluated.

Opinion: Besides all of this, it's just two knives. Ignorant people blew it out of proportion based off of what someone like Ltk said in his video. Of which is apparently corrected and he's apologized.
Differing Opinion: To LTK is was just two knives. To me it was the total sum of EVERY knife from my modern traditional series that EVER tested outside of factory specifications. We wasted many blades testing to try and find the anomaly. But the only two we had ever seen tested low were by one person.
I think anyone that saw the videos knows it was more than a passing mention. It was the poster boys of the pitch that was being sold. LTK kept adding to his original mention with statements like he would "stand on" these results. When what I said about "headaches" was interpreted to be a legal threat, he said "bring it on". Now, he is a good guy and comments look much different in hindsight many times than they do at the point in time where you are certain that you are right. But I will point out that in his "giveaway" video, that was posted Saturday after Kurt had retested the dom himself to within specs and then taken to Peters and got four identical readings of 59.1hrc, he doubled down on the old readings but started broadening the conversation away from simple hrc readings that had been the backbone of all previous videos. Making no mention of any updates to include new readings. That was when I was compelled to make my first post since the ill advised post on the original video.

Regarding the comment about taking a blade out of the frame for testing. That was mentioned in my response to the first youtube video wherein I was discussing the knives I had sent for testing. Those knives also included a sample from the "Bolus" series which does not have nearly as much tang exposed. Brad called me to ask if he could remove it from the frame to insure a valid test. I am in no position to question him on this point.

I think Lee and Kurt are good people. I don't think they set out to have this thing blossom like it did. But there was not enough management of the situation to insure it would not turn out like it did. Lee is very "excitable" in his videos. And he drew a large crowd of folks that had no concern for what the publicity would do to the other folks involved. I did not go on a witch hunt. I kept my mouth shut for two weeks while the facts came out and only when it appeared as if those known results were not going to be offered by the testing team - I responded with a differing view on a more neutral youtube channel.

Before moving back to Oklahoma to help my parents after a terminal diagnosis for my father, I had a highly technical career. Which also included working with / for government contractors. My background and my mindset is analytical. Thus I see things differently than many. But, although I love to have conversations with the members on BF as well as other platforms - I hate controversy. Many times I play the devil's advocate and many times there are disagreements. But many times these controversy come up on social media that would never have come up with folks having a civilized conversation face to face.

There is no way for me to express how much this situation has stressed me over the last couple weeks. But to be honest, in the last week we have had personal events that leave it nearly just banter. Not that the stress has resided any, but that I never realized how much stress a person would have to endure sometimes in God's path for us. I know when you put yourself into the public eye, you open yourself up to being called a liar, a crook, etc. etc. But I would simply ask, for me, and recommend for everyone else reading - just take the time to approach a person like you would your neighbor at the picket fence on these kinds of issues. There are so many things that unite us and so few that divide us.
Click to expand...

Mike, I appreciate you coming here and taking the time that you did to address the concerns that were brought up here. You did so with a thoroughness and precision that your accuser couldn't be bothered to match. I won't speculate as to the character of the individual in question but I think the statements made speak for themselves.

My condolences to you and your family, I hope there is some good news in the not so distant future. The fact that you were willing to take the time to tackle this nonsense amidst your family tragedy speaks to the character that many, if not most, of us know you to possess. Please keep up the great work and know that my thoughts are with you and your family.
 
HappyDaddy said:
Late to the thread. Can someone catch me up?:D
Click to expand...

By this point, I think we’re unanimous in agreeing that the testing group (which includes me) needs to be more responsible verifying and privately reporting low outlier hits, and there is still disagreement about where people would like to see M390/20CV/204P delivered in terms of hardness. We also agree that you seem to be happy, daddy.
 
knifeswapper said:
I didn't see this post until just now as my we have been involved in a devastating family event. And reading 20 pages would probably just aggravate me terribly. But I would like to offer this right here and in the other nasty thread - if you have a question about anything I said on social media about this particular discussion regarding its authenticity or truthfulness, post it right here and tag me. Not a nasty accusatory post, but a question of explanation in a courteous fashion - I will explain in kind.
Click to expand...

I am very sorry for your misfortune. You and your family are in my prayers.
 
The only thing I can add to this discussion is that I have three of Mike's @knifeswapper SFO knives in M390, and they certainly behave as if they are the specified RC. I would not hesitate to buy another.

Mike - Best wishes for you and your family in these difficult times.
 
@knifeswapper - Mike, I’m sorry to hear you’re going through something terrible. You’ve always done right by me. I’ve bought several knives from you and will buy several more.

Smoke and prayers up from Houston - God bless.
 
One warning with points for trolling.
 
knifeswapper said:
But I would simply ask, for me, and recommend for everyone else reading - just take the time to approach a person like you would your neighbor at the picket fence on these kinds of issues. There are so many things that unite us and so few that divide us.
Click to expand...

Amen brother. Unfortunately not everyone shows their neighbor respect, especially under the cloak of anonymity.
 
knifeswapper said:
Back a few posts there was a response to Mo2 that included some rebut of nearly every point he made. I can add some clarity to those as well.

False: First post was Mike insinuating that they did an hrc test on the blade edge. Of which wasn't true.
True: If you read the referenced post, you will understand that I am referring to knives that I sent to Peters previously - not those that Kurt took. My post was well before Kurt even went to Peters.

False: The 2nd to last paragraph in particular in the latest post are a bit disingenious. Saying he would have to hunt down posts. And then next calling out one comment about paint chips, which is in reference to running the test.
True: Already addressed by someone that read my statement without preconceptions; but just to verify: There were many vicious trolls on instagram that attacked anyone requesting a measured testing methodology or questioning the process used. Many of the trolls prompted responses by those on the testing team, to include Kurt, that made some statements in hindsight seem ill advised. So, it would be much easier to just remove the account than to hunt them down. But this was speculation on my part, I don't know why he removed the IG account. But in one particularly vicious attack by trolls on a customer of mine that only recommended third party verification, I copy/pasted the entire exchange and that is where I quoted Kurt's response to the care that need be taken with equipment that will be used to make commercial claims.

False: It's not hard, many knife makers get an aim's Hardness tester and read the directions. You don't need to be an expert to run an hrc test.
True: It's not hard to test for private use. But when you are going to test to call a manufacture incompetent or challenge their specifications, you probably need to do more than read a manual. For example, documents are found rather easily that say never test within 3 diameters of another test / edge / anomaly. Yet you can clearly see the shuffler has been tested at least twice within 3 diameters of another test.

False: If Mike was at Peter's, he would have known that they compared methods of running the test and calibration with Peter's and nothing is different in the methods. Not to mention they tested other knives that got the same results with on both machines. But Mike wouldn't know that, cause he wasn't there.
True: I wasn't there. But I am the one that introduced Kurt and Brad. I am the one that setup the verification with an agreement that I would be provided the results pertinent to the knives which I was invested. My conversation with Brad does not reconcile with your statement. First off, there is no way that any shop's testing / calibration methods compare with Brad's. Every morning at open they test a NIST 30, 40, 50, and 6X (don't recall if it was 61, etc.) block 3 times on each of their 3 machines. That is 36 tests just to open the shop each day. Calibration is done at any time these do not provide expected results, but never any later than the industry standard calibration dates (calibration is done by a 3rd party).
It is expected that they would match on some results. Sadly very few testing methodologies allow for "a finite number of unexplained inconsistencies".
I have had several long conversations with Brad. He is the most detailed and genuine person I have ever talked to in this expertise. For example, on their testing equipment it takes 8/10000ths of inch of to drop the hrc result by 1 point. Thus by my calculation that means a 50micron particle of dust would provide a reading up to 3 points off. When that type of precision is required, I want someone doing more that just buying themselves a tester and reading the manual (as is suggested) if they were going to challenge commercial results.

False: Yet Mike's making it seem like this anomaly makes all these tests invalid, of which does not. Then he goes and says how his work place must have all the wrong numbers...
True: No, quite the opposite. I think most of the results were probably correct. But it is a science, and especially when you are going to go after a companies livelihood with commercial claims. They had readings that any industry expert could spot as highly questionable. For example, I asked Brad how likely it was to get 4-6 different readings on 1 square inch of a blade tang. His response was that in 36 years he has never seen a variance of more than a point or two inside that amount of space. There can be false low numbers for many reasons - false high numbers are an entirely different issue. Once that shuffler received a 58 test, a big red light should have started flashing. Any testing methodology that is going to expect the respect of the industry is going to need to be easily reproducible by peer testing experts. And if you are putting out even one number that is proven patently incorrect - then the entire methodology has to be re-evaluated.

Opinion: Besides all of this, it's just two knives. Ignorant people blew it out of proportion based off of what someone like Ltk said in his video. Of which is apparently corrected and he's apologized.
Differing Opinion: To LTK is was just two knives. To me it was the total sum of EVERY knife from my modern traditional series that EVER tested outside of factory specifications. We wasted many blades testing to try and find the anomaly. But the only two we had ever seen tested low were by one person.
I think anyone that saw the videos knows it was more than a passing mention. It was the poster boys of the pitch that was being sold. LTK kept adding to his original mention with statements like he would "stand on" these results. When what I said about "headaches" was interpreted to be a legal threat, he said "bring it on". Now, he is a good guy and comments look much different in hindsight many times than they do at the point in time where you are certain that you are right. But I will point out that in his "giveaway" video, that was posted Saturday after Kurt had retested the dom himself to within specs and then taken to Peters and got four identical readings of 59.1hrc, he doubled down on the old readings but started broadening the conversation away from simple hrc readings that had been the backbone of all previous videos. Making no mention of any updates to include new readings. That was when I was compelled to make my first post since the ill advised post on the original video.

Regarding the comment about taking a blade out of the frame for testing. That was mentioned in my response to the first youtube video wherein I was discussing the knives I had sent for testing. Those knives also included a sample from the "Bolus" series which does not have nearly as much tang exposed. Brad called me to ask if he could remove it from the frame to insure a valid test. I am in no position to question him on this point.

I think Lee and Kurt are good people. I don't think they set out to have this thing blossom like it did. But there was not enough management of the situation to insure it would not turn out like it did. Lee is very "excitable" in his videos. And he drew a large crowd of folks that had no concern for what the publicity would do to the other folks involved. I did not go on a witch hunt. I kept my mouth shut for two weeks while the facts came out and only when it appeared as if those known results were not going to be offered by the testing team - I responded with a differing view on a more neutral youtube channel.

Before moving back to Oklahoma to help my parents after a terminal diagnosis for my father, I had a highly technical career. Which also included working with / for government contractors. My background and my mindset is analytical. Thus I see things differently than many. But, although I love to have conversations with the members on BF as well as other platforms - I hate controversy. Many times I play the devil's advocate and many times there are disagreements. But many times these controversy come up on social media that would never have come up with folks having a civilized conversation face to face.

There is no way for me to express how much this situation has stressed me over the last couple weeks. But to be honest, in the last week we have had personal events that leave it nearly just banter. Not that the stress has resided any, but that I never realized how much stress a person would have to endure sometimes in God's path for us. I know when you put yourself into the public eye, you open yourself up to being called a liar, a crook, etc. etc. But I would simply ask, for me, and recommend for everyone else reading - just take the time to approach a person like you would your neighbor at the picket fence on these kinds of issues. There are so many things that unite us and so few that divide us.
Click to expand...

I love hearing about the extra care/rigor peters takes to ensure their equipment is up to snuff. The lab I run is more of a high output lab, in a fuzzier field, so we don't perform nearly that level of scrutiny on our equipment, but we know the limits of the the data's reliability and what we should do with it. When we need to "go after someone", you get your "A" game on and act like an analytical lab that performs to ISO, AOAC, FDA BAM or some other higher level of standard.

I hope this works out as best as possible Mike, but more importantly that there is good progress in the healing in your more important personal circumstance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top