Pricing...huh?

[Strong-Dog]

I really wish Sal or Eric would chime in. Just a simple answer or reason(s) would put us (or at least me) at ease. Even if the Slysz is so much more expensive just because Spyderco wants (or their pricing model dictates) more profit. I'd be more than happy with any answer at all, even if in the end I don't necessarily like it.

At this point, this is where I stand. I really like the features and design of this knife, and really want to own one. I also can afford one. However, I will not be buying one out of sheer principle. Unless otherwise explained by Spyderco, the fact that they can produce something like the K2 for around $60 less than the Slysz just doesn't make sense to me personally. Every reason people are coming up with at this point is pure conjecture, and isn't yet proven true, so therefor I will hold off on purchasing. Strictly my opinions and values.

[senorsquare]

It is all conjecture really because I would guess that none of us here know the first thing about designing, R&D'ing, sourcing materials, negotiating with makers and finally producing high end production knives and getting them to market.

I will conjecture that in the end the answer will be pretty simple; The Slysz Bowie costs more to produce and that's all.

It makes sense to me too; for a mere $60 more you get sculpted ti handles, rounded spine and a polished and stonewashed blade and G10 backspacer. In comparison the finish on the K2 seems pretty crude with its flat slab handles and satin finished blade (as it should be for an overbuilt hard use knife.)

[Cheddarnut]

Collaborations do not seem to be priced uniformly, and like many above I assume that different designers have different arrangements with Spyderco. It's fine - if a particular collaboration knife seems expensive, we can just pass. :spyder:

No we cant, we're addicts.

[Mike157]

I'm curious also. But just purely from a point of personal interest. I received my Slysz Bowie yesterday and really like it. Just a clean, well designed, well built, somewhat compact knife that opens easily and smoothly and fits my hand well. I won't post a picture because it takes me forever and I'm not such a hot photographer, and you've seen plenty at this point. I've got to say, the tumbled, polished, razor sharp blade with the rounded polished spine brings a large smile to my face. It is, and will be in my pocket for some time.

This is a bit off topic....I often prefer carrying the thinner and lighter FRN handled models such as the Manix 2 with the CPM S110 blade. Closed, the Slysz Bowie is 1/4" to 3/8" shorter than the Manix 2 (it is also heavier at 4.25 oz. vs 2.88 oz. for the Manix). It is somewhere on the order of 3/8" narrower and seems much thinner due to the rounded scales (only around five to ten thousands narrower), and overall maybe 1/8" shorter. But the blade on the Slysz Bowie is slightly longer than that of the Manix and the sharpened edge is about (eyeballing it) 3/8" longer. A nice amount of blade in a smaller package. I guess what I'm running on about is that I think I like this slightly smaller package with a bit more blade (I think I might prefer the blade profile also) but will need to adjust to the slightly higher weight. Hope the off topic is tolerable. Mike

And yes, the addict thing.

[Cujobob]

Why are people so concerned about this?

Finish work/labor is expensive. Material cost is only one cost. There's material waste to consider, CNC programming, different steps in the finishing process, etc.

Spyderco could have simply raised the price of the K2 and you'd never think twice about it.

I don't know that that "... so concerned..." is really present to any great degree. The OP posted that he was just curious and there does not appear to be genuine groundswell of outrage afoot.

This is merely a discussion forum, and that's what he came here to do - discuss - which is the point, right?

Of course, but it's been mentioned a few times elsewhere, too. There was also a post suggesting people hold off on buying a knife until this is answered and saying they thought the increase was insane. I respect their point of view, of course, but in the knife-world, parts quality doesn't have anything to do with final price. I have a $500 mid tech-ish collab in D2 steel. Titanium liners, carbon fiber scales, etc....not uncommon at all. Besides that, I think Spyderco has had plenty of other knives with small embellishments that sold for more than their parts-quality may suggest. The Serrata, the fancy Ti versions of various knives (fluted, stepped, etc), and others. They make good knives and the final cost is what it is. I assume the company could have finished the Bowie blade with a finish that was less gorgeous and it would bring the price down somewhat. Compared to Grayman knives, are these knives really less value (considering the refinements)?

I'm not trying to come off as a fanboy here, but I feel like this whole conversation was only raised because of the price of the K2 being so low.

Collaboration costs very well could be different from one designer to the next. Some guys have huge names in the industry (there's been discussion of another Southard knife, a Resenti, and a couple of others I forget atm). Certain names will automatically increase the demand and that demand creates profit for Spyderco.

Anyways, hope those who need them get the answers they're seeking.

[dbcad]

There is most likely a formula, or set of formulas used in setting prices. I understand their profit margins are lower than most :D Spyderco seems to have a pretty sophisticated and well thought out business model. It seems to be working well

Tickled I can have a SB Endura and XHP Native for under $100 each :D

Charlie

[tvenuto]

However, I will not be buying one out of sheer principle. Unless otherwise explained by Spyderco, the fact that they can produce something like the K2 for around $60 less than the Slysz just doesn't make sense to me personally. Every reason people are coming up with at this point is pure conjecture, and isn't yet proven true, so therefor I will hold off on purchasing

I find this stance odd considering your recent mid-tech question thread. Clearly you accept that there is value in a knife beyond the raw materials used or you wouldn't even consider mid-techs, as they are invariably priced astronomically higher than strictly their materials would dictate.

I guess I'm just not exactly sure what you're asking for. Do you want Sal to pop up and show us spreadsheets on how much labor and materials each one has in it? A bit unreasonable if you ask me. It's clear that the Bowie has more finishing features than the K2. Maybe some of us are surprised at how much of a difference this makes, but that doesn't make it wrong, and I think most of us can admit that we know diddly squat about what costs go into a Spyderco.

Don't get me wrong, I think these knives coming out at the same time definitely creates some interesting discussion around what people value in knives. The Bowie and K2 will be an interesting litmus test for Spyderco based on how well each sells. But suggesting a boycott of this knife until we "get some answers on the unwarranted cost" is a bit presumptive, and I don't think it furthers the discussion at all.

[Liquid Cobra]

The pricing difference isn't all that huge. It's $60 bucks.

[Strong-Dog]

However, I will not be buying one out of sheer principle. Unless otherwise explained by Spyderco, the fact that they can produce something like the K2 for around $60 less than the Slysz just doesn't make sense to me personally. Every reason people are coming up with at this point is pure conjecture, and isn't yet proven true, so therefor I will hold off on purchasing

I find this stance odd considering your recent mid-tech question thread. Clearly you accept that there is value in a knife beyond the raw materials used or you wouldn't even consider mid-techs, as they are invariably priced astronomically higher than strictly their materials would dictate.

I guess I'm just not exactly sure what you're asking for. Do you want Sal to pop up and show us spreadsheets on how much labor and materials each one has in it? A bit unreasonable if you ask me. It's clear that the Bowie has more finishing features than the K2. Maybe some of us are surprised at how much of a difference this makes, but that doesn't make it wrong, and I think most of us can admit that we know diddly squat about what costs go into a Spyderco.

Don't get me wrong, I think these knives coming out at the same time definitely creates some interesting discussion around what people value in knives. The Bowie and K2 will be an interesting litmus test for Spyderco based on how well each sells. But suggesting a boycott of this knife until we "get some answers on the unwarranted cost" is a bit presumptive, and I don't think it furthers the discussion at all.

I'm moving closer and closer into the custom realm everyday now, so yes I do accept that there is definitely value in knives behind the materials. But on a mass produced production knife, with no hand finishing or hand tuning, with blades mass heat treated in a giant oven, how much more value can there be besides the materials? Customs? Absolutely. Standard, MASS PRODUCED productions? I don't think so.

The K2 is MUCH bigger, and features a 10V blade and otherwise the same materials. The Bowie has more finishing work, and a much easier to work with blade steel along with being MUCH smaller. Both knives are collabs. I'll admit, I do know diddly squat about what costs go into a Spyderco past the materials, but in a standard production knife, this just doesn't make sense to myself and a lot of other people.

No one else has to hold off on purchasing the knife. But that is what i'm doing, and I think it would be a good idea for others to as well. Best case, we get an answer from Spyderco. Worst case, the street price goes down with time. Also, I made clear when I said "unwarranted cost" that it was entirely subjective and coming from a position of somewhat ignorance.

[gbelleh]

If you trust Spyderco (and I don't see why any of us wouldn't), then we can safely assume that the Bowie costs Spyderco roughly 25% more to produce than the K2. I trust Spyderco's pricing policy, and I can see first hand the extra work the Bowie requires. As for size difference, we're talking about a couple inches of steel and titanium, not the difference between a Smart car and a school bus.

Again, I'll point to the Chaparral 2 vs 3. Everything equal except machine time, but that one factor caused a $135 difference in street price. So a $60 difference with so many other variables to consider seems pretty reasonable to me.

[bh49]

Every year we have the same discussion. Sometimes more than once. Why some new knives are so expensive or why this cost much more than that. And sometimes, when Sal responds, where is always reasonable explanation. Do we want or not new more expensive models are coming. Variety of reasons: cost of material, currency exchange, sole source supplier and so on. Reality. I really do not need to hear reasoning for pricing of these knives. I am sure that Spyderco had their reasons. Spydercos became more expensive and we have to make choices. Both of these knives are too expensive for me, but my Ti fluted Military worth every penny of $270, which I paid.

[Gerard Breuker]

I remember from a discussion during an Amsterdam meet that contouring handles can increase the price significantly.
Not sure if it is the only reason for difference in price between these models but it could very well be.
It is also at least one of the reasons some other models are relatively more expensive then would be expected based on materials alone.

Spyderco could of course have split the difference by letting buyers of the K2 pay for contouring the handles of the Bowie but it is well known the company has been suffering from integrity for decades and is not likely to recover any time soon.

[tvenuto]

Accepting a smaller margin, or even a loss, on one item, and making it up with a larger margin on another item does not indicate a lack of integrity. I know that's not exactly the point you were making, but I felt the need to point that out.

It does bring up an interesting thought experiment: would there be any of this discussion had Spyderco done the above and made the street price ~$265 for each?

[Studey]

I get the impression that any question directed at pricing comes as unwelcome to some forum members. I have seen a tendency toward questioning of Spyderco practices being met with a degree of defensiveness by some of our members, and I think that it diminishes the discussion that can be had.

We all have an affinity for Spyderco, or we would not be here. I don't think that there is cause to take any of these questions personally.

I think that asking questions about pricing are appropriate for this forum. I do not consider it blasphemy to ask questions and wonder, so long as it does not involve personal attacks or demeaning behavior, (which this thread has not had). This is a place for discussion, communication, and exchange of ideas, so why not? And what better place to hear honest feedback, as Spyderco, than here?

I think it's when someone says that it's "insulting", "insane", and proposes a boycott until an answer is given that people think someone is diminishing the discussion. An answer would be great, but without it, it's simple. If you want it, buy it. If you don't think the price is justified, don't.

[mikerestivo]

Why are people so concerned about this?

Finish work/labor is expensive. Material cost is only one cost. There's material waste to consider, CNC programming, different steps in the finishing process, etc.

Spyderco could have simply raised the price of the K2 and you'd never think twice about it.

I don't know that that "... so concerned..." is really present to any great degree. The OP posted that he was just curious and there does not appear to be genuine groundswell of outrage afoot.

This is merely a discussion forum, and that's what he came here to do - discuss - which is the point, right?

Of course, but it's been mentioned a few times elsewhere, too. There was also a post suggesting people hold off on buying a knife until this is answered and saying they thought the increase was insane. I respect their point of view, of course, but in the knife-world, parts quality doesn't have anything to do with final price. I have a $500 mid tech-ish collab in D2 steel. Titanium liners, carbon fiber scales, etc....not uncommon at all. Besides that, I think Spyderco has had plenty of other knives with small embellishments that sold for more than their parts-quality may suggest. The Serrata, the fancy Ti versions of various knives (fluted, stepped, etc), and others. They make good knives and the final cost is what it is. I assume the company could have finished the Bowie blade with a finish that was less gorgeous and it would bring the price down somewhat. Compared to Grayman knives, are these knives really less value (considering the refinements)?

I'm not trying to come off as a fanboy here, but I feel like this whole conversation was only raised because of the price of the K2 being so low.

Collaboration costs very well could be different from one designer to the next. Some guys have huge names in the industry (there's been discussion of another Southard knife, a Resenti, and a couple of others I forget atm). Certain names will automatically increase the demand and that demand creates profit for Spyderco.

Anyways, hope those who need them get the answers they're seeking.

No, seriously dude - I am not implying that you are acting like a fanboy. In fact, I am not that drawn to the subject of pricing, either. I just would like to see that folks feel safe to contribute to the forum. If a member has a question, I say let him ask it. I have been on other forums where harsh responses scare some good people away. And this forum is one of the better ones around because members generally try to be aware of this issue, I think.

I realize that to some this discussion might be repetitive. To others, it might not be, if they are newer members with less experience and such. I have no beef with the topic. My concern is that I don't think it's good for a forum to inhibit discussion on a topic because one person thinks it's repetitive or annoying in some way.

The toughest thing to do sometimes is to see a thread that annoys you, and then not reply and let it play out. The person that asks what might seem like silly or noob-ish questions may have something to contribute at some other point, if they are not shooed away by negative responses.

[Laethageal]

I don't feel attracted much to the design of the Bowie as I see it the "average woman" you pass by without feeling the need to take a look at her. Now, I don't say it can't be a great knife. But seeing the premium price for a medium sized knife tells me that since I'm far from owning even 1/5th of the spydies I would love to try, I'm clearly gonna pass on this one as it's not an "optimal knife/money" ratio for me. Do I feel Sal should justify the price? Not at all. Fit and finish I saw on the pictures speak for themselves and it seems like a premium knife. I simply have too many knife to try and get before I get down paying 280$ for a knife like this one.

[phillipsted]

Ultimately you just have to vote with your wallet and trust MSRP is based on cost to produce.

Exactly. I have no interest in either knife, but if I did, I'd assume that Spyderco's profit percentage was the same for both of them and that their MSRPs reflected the sum of production costs, royalty payments, a consistent formula for recouping R&D costs, and that profit percentage.

Agreed, Deacon. Sal has always been pretty upfront about stating that their MSRP is a direct reflection of production costs - which implies that the profit % on each model is approximately the same. Recent high-priced knives are a result of Sal and company are responding to our requests for more sophisticated designs with more expensive materials which are more costly to produce...

TedP

[Strong-Dog]

I get the impression that any question directed at pricing comes as unwelcome to some forum members. I have seen a tendency toward questioning of Spyderco practices being met with a degree of defensiveness by some of our members, and I think that it diminishes the discussion that can be had.

We all have an affinity for Spyderco, or we would not be here. I don't think that there is cause to take any of these questions personally.

I think that asking questions about pricing are appropriate for this forum. I do not consider it blasphemy to ask questions and wonder, so long as it does not involve personal attacks or demeaning behavior, (which this thread has not had). This is a place for discussion, communication, and exchange of ideas, so why not? And what better place to hear honest feedback, as Spyderco, than here?

I think it's when someone says that it's "insulting", "insane", and proposes a boycott until an answer is given that people think someone is diminishing the discussion. An answer would be great, but without it, it's simple. If you want it, buy it. If you don't think the price is justified, don't.

Dude, go back and read what I said. You're taking it out of context.

I totally respect Spyderco as a company, I just found this price difference a bit odd.

[tvenuto]

I think a lot of us should hold off on purchasing a Slysz Bowie until we hear from Spyderco the exact reason(s) for the unwarranted (totally subjective and possible ignorant, I know) expense. I mean, we're loyal customers, and the Slysz just seems way out of the norm. I want to buy one, I really do, but I think this is important to figure out.

When Spyderco is capable and willing to produce something like the K2 with a street price of $223, the Slysz is almost insulting. I mean that in the most respectful way possible to Spyderco, as again, I know nothing about the actual reasons and could be totally wrong.

It just seems INSANE that the Bowie, even assuming that Slysz, extra finishing work, and contoured handles added extra expense, could be THAT much more expensive than the much bigger K2 made of CPM-10V (!) and otherwise the same materials. In my mind, the prices would make more sense reversed.

[Strong-Dog]

I think a lot of us should hold off on purchasing a Slysz Bowie until we hear from Spyderco the exact reason(s) for the unwarranted (totally subjective and possible ignorant, I know) expense. I mean, we're loyal customers, and the Slysz just seems way out of the norm. I want to buy one, I really do, but I think this is important to figure out.

When Spyderco is capable and willing to produce something like the K2 with a street price of $223, the Slysz is almost insulting. I mean that in the most respectful way possible to Spyderco, as again, I know nothing about the actual reasons and could be totally wrong.

It just seems INSANE that the Bowie, even assuming that Slysz, extra finishing work, and contoured handles added extra expense, could be THAT much more expensive than the much bigger K2 made of CPM-10V (!) and otherwise the same materials. In my mind, the prices would make more sense reversed.

"I think it's when someone says that it's "insulting", "insane", and proposes a boycott until an answer is given that people think someone is diminishing the discussion. An answer would be great, but without it, it's simple. If you want it, buy it. If you don't think the price is justified, don't."

1. I said that it was ALMOST insulting (TO ME), and meant that as respectfully to Spyderco as possible.

2. I personally still do think that a massive titanium frame-lock in CPM-10V being $60 cheaper than a much smaller titanium frame-lock in XHP is insane. As I also stated, this view is coming from a place of ignorance to the intricacies of Spyderco's pricing system and is entirely subjective.

3. As for proposing a boycott, I simply gave my ideal thoughts on the matter and then later stated what I would personally be doing.

In what way am I diminishing the discussion? On the contrary, how am I not further contributing to the discussion by providing my viewpoint which seems to contradict some of yours?