Have you been disappointed with the J.D Smith machining flaws ?

[tac]

"LOL, darn Toyota--I have one, an older model...I'm not going to get another one of those any time soon"

Cause like Spyderco's, they last so darn long you don't have to.
Not easy to wear either one out... LOL LOL

I keep trying though................

That's for sure...if my Toyota or my :spyder: 's ever do wear out I will promptly buy another. :D

[Blerv]

I'm relatively new to the scene but while some Spyderco's have not been "perfect" nothing really is. Cosmetic imperfections don't impact tool performance.

From a tool aspect Spyderco does a great job and F&F is very impressive. Comic books are more consistantly pristine...but they dont make em those in ZDP-189 :) .

[THG]

Do you feel that some are taking marginal cases, or situations that fall outside of warranty issues and try to whip up enough trouble to pressure companies into giving them new knives or replacements with credit?

No, I think they genuinely want the knife they bought, but they're disappointed with the flaws they find. It's a real pain to get a knife you've been excited about and then be struck with the disappointment of some flaw or another.

[cyberspyder]

It's a $130 PRODUCTION knife. $130 is NOTHING, considering others are 1K and above. If it affected FUNCTION then that'd be a problem, but this is purely an aesthetic issue.

[MCM]

That's the problem. When folks move up from $15-$25 folders that do cut things, to $100-$150 folders they think they are buying customs.
On the other side, think back to when you 1st dropped $100 on a knife.
It was a big deal. Huge infact. Then $200 was the mark, OMG $300! NEVER AGAIN! $400.00! END OF THE WORLD $500.00! $1K!

It never ends, but always begins...... :p

[KLJTech]

It's a $130 PRODUCTION knife. $130 is NOTHING, considering others are 1K and above. If it affected FUNCTION then that'd be a problem, but this is purely an aesthetic issue.

For SOME $130 is nothing, for others it's amount that they may have had to save up to acquire and when they do have the money they'd like what they purchased not to have machining marks on the outside it.

You can't say that $130 is NOTHING just because other knives cost well over 1K. If you went out and bought a new car and once you got it home noticed some "cosmetic flaws" in the finish would you not mind since SOME cars cost A LOT more than the one you just bought?

Paying $130 for a knife may well be the average spent on a folder for those of us that buy a lot of knives but to the most people they'd think that we were crazy to spend that much on a folder that has flaws in the finish when brand new.

I personally have had incredibly good luck with Spyderco, only once in all of my purchases have I had a problem but even that was taken care of by the customer service department. In my opinion this persons knife should be made right or replaced.

Just my opinion,
Have a nice weekend.

[yablanowitz]

I think there are increasing numbers of unreasonable expectations and entitlement issues in play. I'll say the same thing here I have said in other places.

Make 10,000 flawless knives yourself. Sell them all for whatever the market will bear. Then you have every right to expect perfection from any knife you buy for the same price or more than you got for your perfect knives.

Is $130 a lot of money? If you are naked and starving, it is a fortune. It's almost six weeks worth of gasoline for me, provided I don't go out of town. It's less than the gas bill to heat my home for each of the last three months. Is it enough to buy perfection in a knife? The $130 hand made customs I've seen have all had flaws. So have most of the $250 customs. Is it reasonable to expect a higher level of fit and finish from a production knife being churned out by the hundreds than you would get from a similarly priced hand-made one-off piece? I don't think so. Do we ever get it? I have, every time I've opened a Spyderco box.

[spoonrobot]

*We're talking about two different things here. The JD Smith has two obvious markings, one on the tang that is inside the handles and one on the ricasso that is outside the handles when opened. I consider the tang marking of little consequence but see the ricasso marking as a poor production error but not something I would return the knife over.

It's a $130 PRODUCTION knife. $130 is NOTHING, considering others are 1K and above. If it affected FUNCTION then that'd be a problem, but this is purely an aesthetic issue.

I don't think so. Right now $130 will buy what is arguably the very best in materials in a folding knife. For that price level you can get CF/G10, S90V/M4 and other top-tier materials as well as design. It may be nothing to you, but to the industry it is generally considered an expensive knife that should be evaluated at a certain level.

From what I've seen the majority of modern folders of interest to the enthusiast are between $50-$150. This is an approachable price level for the average buyer and is what is generally considered higher-end and with this consideration comes expectations of certain things. These vary from person to person but most would find the pitting on the JD Smith to be at the very least, disappointing. To say finish is not important or not a problem is an over reaction. If finish had no bearing on the value of a knife then why do knives that have scratches, off-center blades (that do not rub the liners, etc.) and slight over grinds sell for considerably less than knives without those issues?

Aesthetics are important, they impart the quality and value of a knife to the user and potential buyer. To think otherwise and dismiss cosmetic flaws as out of hand does no one any good. When I saw the markings on the JD Smith the first thing I thought was that there were some corners being cut and it made me concerned with the rest of the knife. If very visible flaws are allowed then what does the lock geometry look like? Are the blade and pin hardness up to spec? Looks don't tell you everything but they are another factor in making a purchasing decision and having confidence that you chose the right knife from the right company.

I feel what we're seeing here is a reaction by some to fit and finish "issues" and then a counter reaction by others to those "issues" as being of no importance. I think we should all weigh in on what we feel is a good level of fit and finish but it is unnecessary to denigrate the feelings of another. If they have expectations that are too great they will either have to lower those expectations, engage in time-intensive purchasing behavior (parsing through for the best example at a knife store) or move on to a different brand or price level.

The main point that I'm trying to get across is that, although they may not be a big deal to some, cosmetic issues are still issues that need to be addressed at times. It's telling that some of the posters bemoaning the over-importance by some of cosmetic issues in this thread have reported what I considered to be non-function affecting cosmetic issues as warranty claims deserving of replacement in the past. I'm not interested in calling anyone out but it's good to remember that we're all proud to be knife users but not to get such a big head about not caring about aesthetics that we make disingenuous claims.

Do you feel that some are taking marginal cases, or situations that fall outside of warranty issues and try to whip up enough trouble to pressure companies into giving them new knives or replacements with credit?

Nothing comes to mind. I don't admit to know the motivations of anyone who posts a warranty claim on a Spyderco-visited forum but over the years it appears that only the really genuine issues are ever dealt with. A lot of times if the warranty department can't be of any help than there isn't really anything else that can be done because there are either no more knives to replace or the issue is within the company's specifications and no credit can be given.

I think a lot of what we see is frustrated venting. It's understandable given the building expectations that come with a larger outlay of money and the wait that comes with ordering through an internet dealer as many do. I think problems are reported and resolved much better when they are allowed to mellow for a few days. The last real problem I had with a knife I waited a few days before posting about because I didn't want my emotions to color the issue and pervert the objective message I prefer to express. Venting doesn't really help anyone but the person doing the venting. It's good for them, at times, but at other times it sparks conflict that overshadows the real issue and nothing gets solved.

[Blerv]

One could always sell the JD and find a model where the pics (or preferably in-hand) is up to the users requirements.

Some people buy multiples and keep the best one. Unlike most things (like cars) it's hard to lose money with a sprint. It's not like this knife is under everyones standards or it wouldn't get past QC (or likely wouldn't).

Some people just buy sprints to use. Find someone who does and find the golden fleece (because it's out there).

Note: for the record my only objection was the title phrasing. I think the question and tone have been mature. Apologies if offenses were made.

[The Mastiff]

Spoonrobot, I don't think there would be a reaction to the threads if the reports of flaws were presented in an objective and mature manner like you do, presenting a logical argument with facts to back things up.

I feel like I've seen a lot more of the other kind lately.

Long, long ago my wife was a head cashier at a name brand box store. Occasionally she would work the service / returns area. Their policy was to give the customers refunds if they raised enough **** just to get them out of the store, even taking in merchandise not even carried at that store.

I think that some believe they are influencing the knife company into doing what they want by doing the online version of the same thing.

Not everybody of course, but I think we are seeing more of this behavior as time goes by. Just my opinion. This is not a comment on what is a legitimate complaint or not, especially about the J.D.Smiths. I never even got a new sprint model and therefore have no opinion on them. Joe

[cyberspyder]

I agree with most of the posts above....it is VERY hard to maintain a high-level of quality when you're mass producing knives, and many times in the past, Spyderco has done just that. $130 certainly isn't a lot of money, if it is, maybe you should stop buying knives and focus your priorities elsewhere IMO.

Also, this is just speculation at this point, without an official statement by Sal & Co. Maybe there is a reason why the flaws are there, maybe the laser cutter just can't do the curves properly...too many if's right now and speculation.

From what I've seen the majority of modern folders of interest to the enthusiast are between $50-$150. This is an approachable price level for the average buyer and is what is generally considered higher-end and with this consideration comes expectations of certain things. These vary from person to person but most would find the pitting on the JD Smith to be at the very least, disappointing. To say finish is not important or not a problem is an over reaction. If finish had no bearing on the value of a knife then why do knives that have scratches, off-center blades (that do not rub the liners, etc.) and slight over grinds sell for considerably less than knives without those issues?

Base on this thinking, any knives above your maximum price point is out of the hands of most average buyers, yes? So knives like Zero Tolerance or even other Spyderco models are higher-end? I don't believe so.

Tolerances are especially hard to maintain on mass production pieces and involve a lot of manual labour. I'm just saying $130, you should NOT expect perfection. If it was perfect, why would there be a market for knives that costs more than that? Are those better than perfect? Of course not.

[cyberspyder]

Just to add something, a lot of you are thinking about this with the wrong mentality. You expect perfection in a production piece, which rarely ever happens. Spyderco's were meant to be used, not sitting in someones safe so it can be flipped at a higher cost.

My two cents.

[The Deacon]

Deacon, the rough finishing on my examples is visible on the ricasso as well as the tang between the handles without any magnification. I can feel the ricasso markings with my finger and the deeper marks on the tang would no doubt provide tactile feedback as well.

I think a big part of the bitterness is being told "No" by the warranty department over the issue. It's become commonplace for some businesses to indulge the customer in whatever they want just to get them out of the way and avoid any negative feelings to ensure future business. When this doesn't occur you get an emotional reaction and venting on the forums.

Specific to the JD Smith; I think the mark on the tang between the handles is a non-issue but the marking on the ricasso raises my eyebrows. I've always felt that the finish underneath the handles is not something I care about, so long as any moving parts are properly finished, but when it's on a part that is exposed when the knife is open it should have been properly taken care of during manufacturing.

Manufacturers have to draw a line between what constitutes a "defect in workmanship" and minor, insignificant imperfections. A bit of roughness in an area like the kick which is not normally touched, or even seen while using the knife, while annoying to those looking for perfection, is still insignificant. My JD Smith does not have those marks, so they're not universal within the Sprint Run. I do own other Spydercos which have similar imperfections in the kick and have never considered them a problem. The imperfections in the hidden portion of the tang would be a defect, if they made the opening and closing of the knife rough. But you don't mention that and, while mine has them, I don't see any ill effects from them either.

Neither of the imperfections affect the functioning of the knife, nor do they make it less comfortable to use, and they are not glaring blemishes one will see or feel every time one looks at or handles the knife. To me, they fall within what a reasonable person would consider acceptable on a production knife. If they are unacceptable to you, then perhaps you should consider purchasing your knives from a brick and mortar store where you can examine the merchandise carefully prior to purchase.

[KLJTech]

So if you expect to receive a knife without noticeable flaws for your measly $130 then you should just find another hobby? How much money does one have to spend before they have a right to say I wasn't expecting to see cosmetic flaws on on my new knife and not be criticized for it?

Right now on my desk there is an original full sized Manix and the Native that was sold at one time at Walmart for around $40 and neither as any manufacturing flaws at all.

I admit that the Native was an incredible deal but if I can buy a great knife with no visible flaws for around forty bucks then why shouldn't the gentlemen that spent $130 expect the same?

Some of us have several hobbies, if I buy a new set of pipes (or name the part) for one of my motorcycles and it/they arrive with cosmetic flaw's nobody on a bike forum is going to say "well it doesn't affect the performance so shut up and stop complaining".

This is not in response to The Deacon's post as I do agree that maybe you'd be better off to buy the knife in person if at all possible so you can check it out before buying it.

[freeman7]

I don't know if I have really got the sense of this thread, but here is my 0.02 anyway.
The main idea seems to be centered around value. If a person buys goods or a service and feels that he has got his money's worth, then he is happy. If not, he is unhappy. This perception will vary from person to person. For example: if I bought a handmade whittler from a well known maker for full price, I would expect it to be as perfect as that maker can manage. If I bought the very same knife from someone who had used it, but took good care of it, I would in most cases, pay less than the original owner and accept some usage marks as normal. How much I would accept and what price I am willing to pay are a personal decision. To sum up, a buyer expects a new knife to be "X" percent perfect for "x" dollars if he is to be satisfied. The buyer's expectations may be unrealistic or they may be easily met. There is an area of subjectivity here that is simply not debatable.

[The Deacon]

To sum up, a buyer expects a new knife to be "X" percent perfect for "x" dollars if he is to be satisfied. The buyer's expectations may be unrealistic or they may be easily met. There is an area of subjectivity here that is simply not debatable.

Exactly, and if one states those expectations on a public forum, the reactions of other people, especially those somewhat familiar with what constitutes "normal" for the brand, will vary in accordance with how reasonable, or unreasonable, those expectations are.

[Diamondback]

So if you expect to receive a knife without noticeable flaws for your measly $130 then you should just find another hobby? How much money does one have to spend before they have a right to say I wasn't expecting to see cosmetic flaws on on my new knife and not be criticized for it?

Right now on my desk there is an original full sized Manix and the Native that was sold at one time at Walmart for around $40 and neither as any manufacturing flaws at all.

I admit that the native was an incredible deal but if I can buy a great knife with no visible flaws for around forty bucks then why shouldn't the gentlemen that spent $130 expect the same?

Some of us have several hobbies, if I buy a new set of pipes (or name the part) for one of my motorcycle and it/they arrive with cosmetic flaw's nobody on a bike forum is going to say "well it doesn't affect the performance so shut up and stop complaining".

This is not in response to The Deacon's post as I do agree that maybe you'd be better off to buy the knife in person if at all possible so you can check it out before buying it.

.....I agree. To demean someone because they think twice when they spend $130 on a knife is incredibly arrogant. Not every Spyder collector can afford every new model and variation that's released. Some of us have to save....to pick and choose. Since when did the "brotherhood" become so exclusive ?

Now, speaking to the issue raised by the OP......sometimes it's an individual call when it comes to what manufacturing flaw you can live with. Most everyone would agree that bringing attention to machining marks on the ricasso of their $55 Native is "carping". Perhaps it becomes a "legitimate" criticism when that same flaw shows up on a limited run collectible. Certainly one way to circumvent this kind of issue is to buy from a retailer who will "inspect" your knife before shipment or has a generous return policy. Personally, what issues you point to in the JD Smith seem to me to be minimal.

When you post on these forums, by nature, you are opening up things up for discussion. It's a sure bet that if you choose to raise the issue of a manufacturing defect, you will get some support, some constructive advice, and then certainly there will be a few who will become outraged that you dare to criticize a Spyderco in any way. No matter what you choose to discuss, on any forum, expect the bad with the good; it's part of the "territory".

-regards

[npueppke]

.....I agree. To demean someone because they think twice when they spend $130 on a knife is incredibly arrogant. Not every Spyder collector can afford every new model and variation that's released. Some of us have to save....to pick and choose. Since when did the "brotherhood" become so exclusive ?

Now, speaking to the issue raised by the OP......sometimes it's an individual call when it comes to what manufacturing flaw you can live with. Most everyone would agree that bringing attention to machining marks on the ricasso of their $55 Native is "carping". Perhaps it becomes a "legitimate" criticism when that same flaw shows up on a limited run collectible. Certainly one way to circumvent this kind of issue is to buy from a retailer who will "inspect" your knife before shipment or has a generous return policy. Personally, what issues you point to in the JD Smith seem to me to be minimal.

When you post on these forums, by nature, you are opening up things up for discussion. It's a sure bet that if you choose to raise the issue of a manufacturing defect, you will get some support, some constructive advice, and then certainly there will be a few who will become outraged that you dare to criticize a Spyderco in any way.

-regards

Well said, Diamondback.

[KLJTech]

Most of us have something that may bother us about a new knife that someone else may never even notice. Luckily there are several very good online knife stores like New Graham, Grand Prairie, DLT Trading Company and so on that if you call will be more than happy to check for whatever you are concerned about before they ship your knife out.

Keep in mind that we all share the same passion for knives and if we weren't big fans of Spyderco we probably wouldn't be here in the first place.

Take care.

[MCM]

Another thing to consider is all the various places Spyderco's are made.
This helps keep prices down and number of models up.
Few complain about that.........
Most Spyderco's are small runs. It may not seem like it, but with so many models they have to be. Its not like their cranking out Buck 110's here. What we are getting is basically limited runs at great prices for the small numbers made. I don't think any knife Co. is doing a better job than Sal & Spyderco.

Think about it. How many Knives Co's put out basically the same knife year after year with only minor changes.
What we have here is the full spectrum of design and materials at "normal" prices. To me this is Amazing. That's why as a knife enthusiast I gravitated to Spyderco after 3 decades of collecting knifes. The variety. Some do come out better than others. To me that's to be expected. I am not justifying it, but I do understand it. I have no idea what its got to be like having things made from all around the world and be responsible for every detail.
The Bushcraft UK comes to mind. Every detail planned. Perfect execution, then IMO due to many factors the wood issue. In my case, (In my mind) the cracks were due to severe climate change. My cracks have almost all healed.
But Spyderco took the hit. Just rambling some thoughts.

Just pass it on if your not 100% happy.

If you want to have your sox blown off, pick up a M4 Gayle Bradley Carbon Fiber C134CF with the funds from the JD and keep the change.

Then come back a let us know what you think.