Nick's question of "why"?

[wrdwrght]

Hi Wrdwrght,

I think we were included in his "presentation", but I don't think it was only us. We probably offer more "new" than other companies, but I think his point of view was more general. He spoke of some companies only having 3 models and that was ok. If you look at the knife industry over the past 20 years, there have been a large amount of new companies and new models mostly because of the many newer Chinese makers. For someone like Nick that tries hard to stay on top of the "new" and "different" in the industry, it can be overwhelming, especially when much of it isn't "new & different". Just more of the same with a different brand or model name.

At any rate, it was an interesting observation that he made and I thought it was an interesting topic for the "inside" of the industry other than just the product.

sal

No doubt Nick’s road to hoe now has a numbing sameness, for all the reasons he mentions.

But I didn’t hear Spyderco get implicated in these reasons; well, unless he threw some shade on sprints, exclusives, and flashes. But he would be the first to admit, I think, that they are meant to scratch an AFI itch rather than broaden a market with things that convincingly explain themselves.

I mean, just look at what Peacent’s heavy lifting, above, reminds us of. Nick knows all that and has, in his many reviews, applauded Spyderco’s broad contribution, wherein the answer to the why of it is usually answered, if not instantly, then no later than when the knife gets in the hand and starts to perform.

So, OK, the knife market is less interesting now with all the me-tooism, but Spyderco has been a rather consistent beacon of meaningful innovation going on three decades. If there is a sign of its dimming, I’ve missed it.

[sal]

Thanx for the kind comments from all of you.

sal

[Daveho]

I’ll add that this also is of cause only Nicks perspectives based on his time in the hobby, for the new guy coming into the hobby having a million and one variants on the same principal as they haven’t experienced the million and one that preceded this generation of knives could be great.
It’s also true that nick is in a unique position where financially his risk is minimised and gets to experience a vast range in the hobby and while anyone CAN afford a high end knife, many don’t WANT to and to this end the range experienced by a consumer is vastly different to that of a Reviewer who gets samples.
You have to review the reviewers position when listening to their recommendations.

Love ya always-
D

[ALuckyBum]

Hang on (hold my beer). I need to respond with a youtube video. Check back on this tread in 1 day (August 25th) and I'll have something for you Sal and friends.

[ALuckyBum]

As promised, here is my video response to this Thread.

https://youtu.be/FzAoJ2_pLoE

[Redman5006]

Just watched your video ALuckyBum and I've seen the pocket clip and lanyard hole grip many times. I personally do not use a lanyard so removing it would make no difference to me. I do like the hourglass clip tho. I feel the Para3 in is a great knife and love it as is. To stay on topic tho, I'm of the opinion that new ideas and models are great and I love seeing new knives. I'm the type that looks at a knife and sees what I like, if I see something I don't like I generally lose intrest. This is what I think happens most of the time and sales suffer and then a knife gets discontinued. Something big like 'a smaller pm2' is sometimes obvious, but how much smaller is open to debate. I think input like yours is what Sal loves to hear and is great.

[sal]

Hi ALuckyBum,

Welcome to our forum and thanx much for the cool video.

sal

[Larry_Mott]

I think the video (thanks for taking time to make it) and this forum both answer a lot of "why" questions as well as ask a lot of "why not" ones :)
On my yearly pilgrimage to Amsterdam i experience both why's and why not's and it is a unique thing to be able to speak to Eric and some of the makers/collaborators about them.

[SF Native]

I would say that for most companies, it’s about making money. The never ending supply of framelock flippers.
I got into knives as an outdoorsman. When I found spyderco, I found a company that scratched two of my other itches, collecting and learning. Who know that knife steels could be so different and you can actually tell with long term usage? I have a bunch of mules in the kitchen as my daily testing ground. Not scientific but fun. The para3 has become my folding mule option and still need to add a 52100.
Spyderco has so many crazy designs. Spend some time with any of them and you will probably get a decent understanding of what it’s for. It might be for you, but they really have a lot of thought into them. I can’t say that about any other company.
You know who does really good knife reviews is Eric. In the blade or shot show videos he is constantly handling the knife in many different ways. Chocking up for detailed cuts, reverse grip, all that stuff. It’s like his own checklist of things a knife should do. That’s a review.

[PStone]

Surfing old posts this morning reading about the roadie before I pull the trigger, and stumbled onto this recent thread. Sal doesn’t always ask himself why. Sometimes he asks US too. :D

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=80353

I've got THO lock-back. A 3.5" Slippie which is essential a 3.5" UKPK that looks like a Caly 3.5 without a lock. Now we've added a 3.5" THO Slippie, which i'm not sure there is a need for? If Canada will accept a THO locker, why do we need a THO 3.5" Slippie?

sal

[ALuckyBum]

This is what I think happens most of the time and sales suffer and then a knife gets discontinued. I think input like yours is what Sal loves to hear and is great.

I agree. I think it needs to be a balance. Sometimes it pays to just give the people what they want (headphone jack on iPhones) and other times, people don't know what they want if they haven't imagined it before (the first iPhone). Having talented knife designers showing us something we haven't considered is the surprising and welcome innovation we wouldn't get if we just listened to the people who want to make something already in existence just a little better. Again, I love how Spyderco does both and isn't afraid to make those small changes that are just good ideas that come from the community (like the ceramic detent ball on the Spydiechef).

[Daveho]

Thanks for the video, you raised some interesting points but in what world would a parra 2.5 have a 3.25” blade, this is lunacy.
I would happily embrace a parra variant with a 2.5” blade as that’s where I thought you where going :)
It would be like a normal shaped rhino.
*god that’s a weird sentence*

[Evil D]

Thanks for the video, you raised some interesting points but in what world would a parra 2.5 have a 3.25” blade, this is lunacy.
I would happily embrace a parra variant with a 2.5” blade as that’s where I thought you where going :)
It would be like a normal shaped rhino.
*god that’s a weird sentence*

I think he might be referring to the number sequence...the 3 doesn't refer to blade length, only that it's the 3rd Paramilitary version. A 2.5 would be between the 2 and 3 and I guess share traits of both.

[Daveho]

Thanks for the video, you raised some interesting points but in what world would a parra 2.5 have a 3.25” blade, this is lunacy.
I would happily embrace a parra variant with a 2.5” blade as that’s where I thought you where going :)
It would be like a normal shaped rhino.
*god that’s a weird sentence*

I think he might be referring to the number sequence...the 3 doesn't refer to blade length, only that it's the 3rd Paramilitary version. A 2.5 would be between the 2 and 3 and I guess share traits of both.

But the para 3 is not a paramilitary model.
Even though it totaly is...

[Evil D]

Thanks for the video, you raised some interesting points but in what world would a parra 2.5 have a 3.25” blade, this is lunacy.
I would happily embrace a parra variant with a 2.5” blade as that’s where I thought you where going :)
It would be like a normal shaped rhino.
*god that’s a weird sentence*

I think he might be referring to the number sequence...the 3 doesn't refer to blade length, only that it's the 3rd Paramilitary version. A 2.5 would be between the 2 and 3 and I guess share traits of both.

But the para 3 is not a paramilitary model.
Even though it totaly is...

I kinda see it as a more true version of the original Paramilitary, at least size wise. It's definitely confusing since there is a Caly 3.5 that is essentially the same thing but a half inch longer.

[Daveho]

Thanks for the video, you raised some interesting points but in what world would a parra 2.5 have a 3.25” blade, this is lunacy.
I would happily embrace a parra variant with a 2.5” blade as that’s where I thought you where going :)
It would be like a normal shaped rhino.
*god that’s a weird sentence*

I think he might be referring to the number sequence...the 3 doesn't refer to blade length, only that it's the 3rd Paramilitary version. A 2.5 would be between the 2 and 3 and I guess share traits of both.

But the para 3 is not a paramilitary model.
Even though it totaly is...

I kinda see it as a more true version of the original Paramilitary, at least size wise. It's definitely confusing since there is a Caly 3.5 that is essentially the same thing but a half inch longer.

I know right!
Interesting how delicious the roast beef is even when it’s sliced this thin huh.. you justs need to add more slices.

[NickShabazz]

My big question now is "WHY" haven't I checked these forums all week! Thanks, Sal, for the shout-out, the respect, and for bringing this question to the forums. You all had some great responses, and I wish this forum had a "Like" button so I could share my appreciation. I'm not going to respond everywhere, and I absolutely know I (and my ilk) may not be to all tastes, but a few comments resonated, or I felt like required a quick response:

I think we were included in his "presentation", but I don't think it was only us. We probably offer more "new" than other companies, but I think his point of view was more general. He spoke of some companies only having 3 models and that was ok. If you look at the knife industry over the past 20 years, there have been a large amount of new companies and new models mostly because of the many newer Chinese makers. For someone like Nick that tries hard to stay on top of the "new" and "different" in the industry, it can be overwhelming, especially when much of it isn't "new & different". Just more of the same with a different brand or model name.

Spyderco, to my mind, is one of the better companies in terms of delivering knives with "why", as I hoped I'd expressed. There's very little duplication, and very often new knives have something new and interesting and weird to distinguish them. And even in the cases where there's little seeming call for a knife (the Alcyone/Polestar come to mind with the existence of the Tenacious et al.), it's often that there's a justification that just doesn't resonate with me ("US Made Steel in Chinese knives is a desirable plus"). Frankly, Spyderco is usually early to these parties, rather than creating "another damned [insert knife fad]". "Many models" isn't a fault, so much as "many largely indistinguishable models" or "many undercooked ones".

Nick seems frustrated with the number of new knives that are not filling a new niche or that are not game changers. You are gonna have to have a lot of knives that are not those things in order to have a few knives that are. It is the nature of the beast. It is unrealistic to ask every knife to raise the bar.

Absolutely, this is a great point. But my frustration is that some companies seem to lack a "filter". Nobody looks at the design and says "Well, we could do this average thing, or we could go back to the drawing board and do something better". Failed experiments are a fact of life, and I don't tend to fault those, so much as "Well, here's this week's uninspired 3.25" flipper".

To me, Nick does seem to be jaded. He wants something different, something he can be excited about for reasons he can’t quite explain. He holds knife makers and designers responsible for supplying something that he can be excited about, or why bother? Market forces, individual likes and dislikes, others’ perceptions of value and uniqueness don’t seem to count. I found his video to be overly long and rambling and very subjective in that he attempts to justify his feelings with vague market and design criteria that he isn’t quite certain about.

There's a big element of truth there. I probably am jaded, and I absolutely am subjective, and fail to take into account everybody else's feelings. That's sort of the nature of subjective review, though. This is why makers shouldn't focus on the wants of one loud voice over their entire base of fans, or you could end up over-fitting to some jaded jackass. Frankly, that's a good argument against "superstar" reviewers with large followings being a good thing for the community. But I trust Eric and Sal to disagree when it makes sense to.

I remember years back when I was working in San Francisco. The Apple iPad was released to great anticipation and great suspicion. After the crowds had cleared at the downtown Apple store, I walked down one day and bought one. The big question many people asked me was “why”? It’s just the same as the iPhone, just bigger most said. “Who needs that?” If Apple has listened to a Nick equivalent, they wouldn’t have made it in the first place.

To be fair, I had a first-gen iPad, and love it! :D I'd like to think that I'm not so closed-minded as to fail to see those sorts of things in front of me, and I'm not just a nay-sayer. I think an important element of doing gear review is trying things even when you don't get it. Sometimes, I've been surprised. The FRN Chaparral comes to mind. "Why would I do this over the Delic... Oh. That's why. Because it's brilliant." Same with the Shaman. Particularly with a designer whose work and design sense I respect, like Eric or Sal or Rick Hinderer or Dmitriy Sinkevitch (to name a small subset), even if I don't 'get it', I'll give it a fair shake. Sometimes I'm still not in love. But there are iPads.

Nick is largely viewed as an expert in the online knife community and has the power to influence, at least to some extent, the direction of the knife market. This is a role he voluntarily engages in and more power to him. I respect that. However, with that, you open yourself to critique. Just posting a video such as that being discussed is opening yourself to critique. And critique is what I provided and it was relevant to the discussion.

In the spirit of diversity, my opinions and thoughts are just as valid as those that Nick shares in his video. For the record, Nick and I have exchanged private messages in the past and while I don't expect him to remember me or anything I'm just saying that this is something he and I have discussed before. I can be gruff and blunt but I do respect that he puts himself out there.

Hi Eli! Nice to hear from you again. And I agree, free speech gives me the right to share my opinion, just as it gives you the right to disagree and explain. Polite disagreement, even with my entire approach to knife reviewing and cutlery is absolutely within your rights, and some of the points you raise are important for people to ponder before they go listening to *anybody* for advice on knives. And frankly, most interaction is with 12 year olds in YouTube comments. Don't worry, you're not the gruffest person I've heard all day :)

It’s also true that nick is in a unique position where financially his risk is minimised and gets to experience a vast range in the hobby and while anyone CAN afford a high end knife, many don’t WANT to and to this end the range experienced by a consumer is vastly different to that of a Reviewer who gets samples.
You have to review the reviewers position when listening to their recommendations.

This is one of the best take-aways from any discussion of any reviews: Once somebody becomes a 'reviewer', even if it is just a hobby alongside their day job, they become really weird (well, I started that way). I'm not "Johnny Everyman", and I'm not you, and "picking up" a $500 knife means something very different when you've got people who are willing to help you do so. A big part of finding helpful reviews is finding somebody whose 'weird' largely harmonizes with yours, and then trying to subtract out the bias that comes from being in this weird position.

I think that if you, as a reviewer needs to ask yourself why am i doing this if i am jaded and tired of the endless stream of new offerings, you need to quit, or take a long break. What about movie and music reviewers? Or car magazine testers? The day they proclaim "Another 4-door Japanese made wagon with a 4-cylinder engine? Why, <insert manufacturer here>

I'm not so jaded that I can't find joy and passion in excellent gear, where it's released, even if the "me too" stuff is tiring. Just today, I released a review of a really excellent new(ish) knife, which absolutely has a strong "why", and which many in the community have found some passion for too. And I filmed one too! And there are new offerings I'm genuinely excited about. The Brouwer, Paysan, Slysz Swayback (someday!), and Smock are all "run to the mailbox" exciting for me, along with a bunch of knives by other makers. I would perhaps rephrase: Imagine you review ice cream, and you've just went from Vanilla, to Vanilla Bean, to French Vanilla, to Malagasy Vanilla, all in a stretch. You can be *very* done with Vanilla, while still having your eye on the Rocky Road. I don't hate ice cream, but PLEASE, let's have some Chocolate :)

Anyways, great discussion everybody, thanks for watching, and I'm off to go find me some ice cream.

[Daveho]

Nick “Bomb thrower” Shabazz.
Comes in, throws bomb, gone for a week.
The villagers are all razzed up.
“Rabble rabble rabble
Burn the blasphemous
Rabble rabble”

[MichaelScott]

I was wondering if Nick was going to respond to this thread. Nick, I’m really glad you did. Otherwise, it would have remained pretty much one sided and echo-chamber like. I read you comments through a couple of times. Even though you are weird (as are most of the knife aficionados here) it’s good to get your take on your reviews and how you perceive them. I believe I somewhat misinterpreted your arguments for “why” in your video. They seemed to be relatively unfocused and seemed to me to say, if you don’t have a good (this was the undefined part for me... good) reason for designing and producing a knife, then don’t bother. I suspect many people who are bottom line oriented see that a current popular design, color, blade shape, etc. is selling like hot cakes and decide to get in on the action. It is more of a profit decision than a design one.

So, I’d like to respond to a few of your comments on the forum.

“Many models" isn't a fault, so much as "many largely indistinguishable models" or "many undercooked ones".

I think this is the nub of your “why” argument and I have to agree.

“I probably am jaded, and I absolutely am subjective, and fail to take into account everybody else's feelings. That's sort of the nature of subjective review, though.” And, “A big part of finding helpful reviews is finding somebody whose 'weird' largely harmonizes with yours, and then trying to subtract out the bias that comes from being in this weird position.”

True enough. I think I too often let my disagreements with your subjective opinions cloud the overall substance of your review. Thinking back, there are always things I agree and disagree with, so I need to keep that in mind and not throw the baby out with the bath water. If you did try to take everyone’s feelings into account, you’d not be able to say much of anything. Specs, maybe.

“I think an important element of doing gear review is trying things even when you don't get it. Sometimes, I've been surprised. “

Ah, ha! Changing one’s mind. Nice. A rare occurrence in the internet jungle.

Lastly, I think there are some instances of a knife company asking “why” to the wrong assumptions. Or, maybe they aren’t actually trying to resolve a real or rational “why” but attempting to set a new thing, drive a new fad which although maybe cool, doesn’t answer a real question. I have in mind the new take apart, field strip without tools hunting knife.

Almost everyone I have known who hunts seriously carries at least one, more often two, fixed blade knives designed for the tasks of field dressing, however minimally, a kill. And, if a folder is used, I know of no incidents in which that folder would have to be field stripped, cleaned and reassembled to continue the job. I suspect that “design” is more of an attempt to introduce a new feature that is pretty nifty, but of no real utility value. It will spread for a while I think. That knife is really subject to a solid “why”.

Thanks, Nick, for joining the discussion.

[Mushroom]

Thanks for the video, you raised some interesting points but in what world would a parra 2.5 have a 3.25” blade, this is lunacy.
I would happily embrace a parra variant with a 2.5” blade as that’s where I thought you where going :)
It would be like a normal shaped rhino.
*god that’s a weird sentence*

I think he might be referring to the number sequence...the 3 doesn't refer to blade length, only that it's the 3rd Paramilitary version. A 2.5 would be between the 2 and 3 and I guess share traits of both.

The 3 in the "Para 3" name does refer to the blade length, not its place in the lineup. So, a "Para 2.5" would insinuate a 2.5" blade.

From the December 2016 Spyderco Byte: "...Although clearly based on the Para Military 2, the Para 3 was not named the “Para Military 3” because its smaller size qualifies it as a different knife design. Similarly, the “3” in its name actually reflects its three-inch blade length rather than identifying it as a third-generation of the Para Military design..."

If the Paramilitary 2 ever sees enough of a design change to warrant changing the name, it would likely be Paramilitary 3.

I suspect the knife suggested by ALuckyBum would be a confusing one to name. Is it part of the Para line or Paramilitary line? I would guess the name to be "Para 3.25", if the same handle remained from the Para 3.