I'll stick my neck out and say that a 500 knife order (like the last couple years) should be enough to get Case to make a run. They've done that in the past for other clubs. I've often thought that a BF version of the Bose annual knife would be a good fit. Not the high end version (although I'd like that) but the less expensive versions they run off in multiple short runs (like the Swayback Jack in yellow they made 100 of).
Likewise, if we couldn't get something like Charlie's Jack in Unicorn Ivory, I think a smaller (3 1/2" - 3 5/8") knife would be a nice change.
I have always held the position that the Traditional knife should be something different, not just a readily available pattern with different covers. Bringing back a run of a pattern long out of production distinguishes us, and can also benefit to maker. The GEC 13 series, for example, is entirely due to our BF knife, a pattern that had not been run for 40 years. This does not mean we should put a hardship on the manufacturer to come up with a totally new design, Case for example could have made that knife; they ran that pattern back in the 1930's and still make a Congress on occasion.
GEC is running their 62 pattern this year. The following picture is an old Remington pattern that's basically impossible to find, and yet it would easily translate to the 62. Small, Wharncliff, pen, single spring, etc; a small, usable knife. Flat bolsters and nice scales would make it a pretty fancy, and very uncommon, addition to any collection.
Likewise, an equal end like the next picture is rare enough that it's a custom item if you want one, and it too should be easy enough for most manufacturers, as they have a similar pattern in the library. That's a shame.
I will always support the annual knife, but I think we lose something when we settle for just another minor change in a already planned run or for something easily duplicated by placing a special order with the manufacturers custom shop. I do understand the labor involved in this project, and I can't say enough about those individuals who have worked on this over the years. But I hate to see something like this, which to me has a special meaning, dumbed down.
Last, the one thing I really dislike of this whole process is the continued emphasis to keep the price below $100. This has had a serious impact on the buying power and uniqueness of what can be accomplished, and I suggest we raise that limit to $125, which is a very reasonable level of inflation for a pricepoint that has remained constant for 15 years.
