Trolling For Hate: Bad Justifications and Buying Cheap Stuff

I listen to about a dozen podcasts of various topics (new favorite: 99% Invisible by Roman Mars). On three separate podcasts there were similar issues about expensive tools and gear. On Wood Talk #168  Mark, Matt, and Shannon did a single topic show on expensive tools. On the Knife Journal Ep.27 Podcast Kyle Ver Steeg had an eloquent and hilarious rant about Mora knives. And then on the Pen Addict #94 Brad had a little commentary on the sad state of mainstream pens. All of these sentiments pointed to one thing--a general preference for nicer stuff. All of this got the wheels whirring and here is my take.

In gear, Nutnfancy is THE big voice. His opinion shifts markets and alters product designs. But he focuses very heavily on the low to mid end of the market. Few non-gun items he reviews are more than $100. A vanishingly small number cost more than $400. That means that the universe of items is under $400. But those of us that have been interested in gear for a while know that there is virtually no limit to what you can spend. Jim Skelton and his YouTube channel are populated by multi-kilobuck knives.

It’s at this point in the discussion most people say: to each his own. And I agree with that to a certain extent, but I want to push back a little. That idea, if taken literally, is kinda dumb. There are certain purchasing decisions that are just irrational, and "to each his own" is the mantra of the mindless.

Let's start with a simple example. You go to Store A and they have the Cold Steel Mini AK47 for sale for $99.99.



You go to Store B and they have the knife on sale for $59.99. Clearly, to each his own doesn't work here. Buying from Store A, all other things being equal, is just stupid. We all see that. But really there is a lot of this going on.

I started this site so there was a systematic scored evaluation of the gear I like. I find it helpful. Just like I found it helpful reading reviews written by Robert Parker, of Wine Advocate fame, critical product evaluations are, in essence, about distinguishing good stuff from bad. Why bother reading any of this if "to each his own" is all that matters?

Let's take another example, perhaps a bit more challenging one. Let's compare the G10 Drifter to the SS Drifter. These two knives, when critically evaluated, are similar, but the G10 model is better. Yes, I wrote it. The G10 model is just better. Why? The differences are simple: the G10 is lighter and grippier; the SS has a satin blade and a framelock. In real EDC use the difference between a liner lock and a frame lock on the Drifter is meaningless. If there is additional strength found in the framelock, it’s never going to matter in real world use. Second, the satin blade is nicer, as coated blades look crappy over time, but in a $20 knife, WHO CARES? What does matter are things like weight and grip. On a daily basis, these things are places where the G10 model bests the SS model and on a daily basis these things matter.

But if "to each his own" is the mantra, we can throw reason out the door in favor of baseless preferences. And if we are willing to do that, why stop there? Why not do everything based solely on preference? Why look at specs at all? Why look at prices at all?

Let's look at something else, something that is not a comparison between two objects but a "favored" design element in knives--finger scallops like those found on the Benchmade 300SN.



These are not just ugly, they are empirically poor designs. First, because of the shape of the grip that uses finger scallops you are forced to hold the knife in a specific way--the product dictates how you use it, a major no-no in the world of design (aside from the design of safety equipment). Finger scallops have ZERO affordance. But this is not just a snooty design complaint. If you listen to Episode 29 of the Knife Journal Podcast, you'll hear Kyle, a HAND SURGEON, talk about how the muscles of the hand work. Basically as you make a fist, your hand muscles pull your fingers together--the stronger the fist, the tighter your fingers. This means that the idea of finger scallop grips actually counteracts how your hand works when you are really trying to hold on. It’s like a pair of opaque glasses--a self-defeating design. Finger scallops are lazy design. They make something "feel" and "look" ergonomic. But they are neither actually ergonomic nor are they good design. They suck. But people like them because they look cool. Finger scallops on knife handles are the knife world equivalent of the CAPS LOCK button--completely useless, but still around because of tradition. I don't care if Randalls have finger scallops--they DO NOT WORK. Get rid of them.

Oh but we can't have logic or reason invade the world of preference because "to each his own."

And then there are the people that complain about my take on the Cryo. They point out how well it sells, how it’s a great value for what you get, and how it’s pretty darn cheap. Compared to knives of yesteryear it is a huge value, they say. And it is true. But this is Brad's point about the G2. The G2 is a very good pen historically speaking. But compared to what's out there now, it’s nothing special. The G2, compared to the current best in class, is merely adequate. The Cyro is similarly adequate (though the G10 version has me excited again). It’s not bad. No way. Compared to the knives 50 years ago it is a stunning achievement. But compared to what's out there now, it’s just not that big a deal. Why buy adequate when you can buy great (the Zing SS)? Why buy adequate when you can buy great for LESS (the G10 Drifter)? You know the comparison between the Cryo and the Zing SS--same materials, same price, better blade:handle and better blade:weight. The numbers show it--the Zing is just better. But it is not a Hinderer design and that's the difference. It is a difference based on preference not fact. In the end, the Cryo is beloved because a group of people that like the Hinderer look and style can get a bit of the magic for $39.95. It’s a good knife, historically speaking. It is a great seller. But in the modern marketplace it is no where near great.

But if "to each his own" is our motto, the Cryo is GREAT (because everything is GREAT) and the state of the art is never advanced. The Case Copperlock begot the Spyderco Worker which begot the Benchmade Mini Grip which begot the Kershaw Skyline...and so on.



If we don't demand the best, we won't get the best. Today’s adequate is yesterday's state of the art, but if we settle for adequate we'll never get tomorrow's state of the art.

Any enthusiast really likes something because they are drawn to what makes that particular thing interesting, great, or unique. And the minute we throw out quality because of preference, we have no business really evaluating anything at all. If it is all preference, then who cares if you spend $40 more for the same thing, or buy an inherently inferior knife, or a design feature that actually does the opposite of what its designed to do? Critical analysis serves all of us. It makes us focus on stuff that matters and it pushes the state of the art forward. Settling for a Mora instead of a Bark River is something you are free to do, but don't pretend like it is a purely rational choice. If you can afford good stuff then always, always buy it. If you can't, save up. Don't buy something lesser and pretend it’s not or worse yet heap scorn on those that do buy better stuff and do so for good and rational reasons.

"To each his own" is a cop out. It is a form of self-delusion and anti-rational thinking. There are pieces of gear that are just better than others. At the top there is a great deal of preference, but comparing the top to the bottom is pretty easy to do. Good tools are worth buying, if you can afford them. Even if that means saving instead of indulging your impulse buy something new every paycheck. I waited a year to buy my XM-18 and I am glad I did. It was worth it to me (if for no other reason than the ability to use and review it for the site), even if its not a price-justified expense compared to say, the Sebenza.  But there is a small amount of irrationality there.  I have not thrown the baby out with the bathwater.  The difference between it and a Sebenza is small, but the difference between it and the Cryo isn't.

Good tools are great fun.  Bashing people for spending a lot of money is great fun.  But at some point rationality has to play a role--a Mora is not as good as a Bark River.  No amount of "to each his own" can make up the difference, unless all rationality is thrown out.  And that point, who cares what you buy or why?  In fact, who cares if you spend twice as much for the same thing?  Its a slippery slope and one that ends in silliness. 

San Ren Mu 605 Review

Until now I have been reticient to dive into the world of ultra-budget knives.  The wildly varying fit and finish and the lack of a real warranty (or one that makes it worthwhile to exchange an $8 knife) means that you are essentially gambling.  Its not a lot of money, but it is frustrating throwing about $8-$15.

But the throwaway factor was only one reason I didn't want to dip my toe in the world of ultra-budget. The other was a concern for supporting companies that steal intellectual property.  San Ren Mu's Sebenza clone is a message board lightning rod, eliciting fiery opinions from both sides.  But the clone is not, per se, a theft of intellectual property and there is no indication that San Ren Mu is engaging in true theft like Kevin Johns is, so I decided it was time.

The first ultra-budget knife I am going to review is a knife that has received good reviews AND is unique.  Too many San Ren Mu knives were just clones of more expensive knives.  But the 605 is really a new design by San Ren Mu and, here is a bit of a spoiler, it is a great little blade.  My 605 happened to have immaculate fit and finish, but some quick looks around the Internet show that I got lucky.  And that is the reason these ultra-budget knives are so frustrating.  If they came together well, great.  If not, you threw away your money.    

Here is the product page. The San Ren Mu costs $9.95. Here is a written review. Here is a video review. Here is a link to Amazon where you can find the San Ren Mu 605, and all proceeds benefit the site when you purchase things through this link:



Here is my review sample (purchased with my own money):



Here is my video overview:


Twitter Review Summary: F&F lottery aside, one of the best small knives available.

Design: 2

Like the much more expensive Spyderco Dragonfly design, the 605 incorporates a half and half finger choil that allows for a full four finger grip, despite the knife's overall tiny dimensions.  The blade shape is an excellent utility drop point and the pocket clip is good.  In short, despite its size and price tag the 605's design checklist is impressive.  This thing does a ton of things right.  I even like the splash of color on the handle instead of the normal, boring black G10.  This is an instance in which a company uses the knife design checklist, but because of a few things, creates a product that is more than the sum of its parts.  Hell, the knife even flicks open with insane and impressive speed.  Virtually everything about the 605's design was a pleasant surprise.  

One small complaint for some might be the fact that the small blade is actually even smaller in terms of cutting length thanks to a very large finger choil.  I never really registered this complaint as I'd always trade control for blade length, but I have seen it leveled against Striders and Spydercos in the past and it would apply here if you are of that mentality.

Here is a size comparison between the San Ren Mu 605 and the standard Zippo:



The blade:handle is .76 (2.25 inch blade with a 2.95 inch handle, the product page specs are wrong, in a good way).  The blade:weight is 1.56, getting very close to the Al Mar Hawk territory.  This is a great little knife by the numbers.

Fit and Finish: 2

On MY 605, there is not a single fit and finish flaw.  None.  No blade play, no overkill lock up, no blade centering issues.  Nothing.  But this is the trick with all of these ultra-budget knives.  From model to model the fit and finish can vary considerably.  If you get a good one, its easily on par with the best Chinese knives from Kershaw or Spyderco.  If not, well the fit and finish can be pretty awful.  I'd like to hear from folks, so comment below if you have had negative experiences.  

Grip: 2

As I mentioned above, I love finger choils (especially ones like this one that allow you to sharpen the knife all the way to the end of the cutting edge), and this one is great.  The two finger choils are very well done and given the size of the knife, give you ample control over everything you'd do with a knife of this size.  Again, no complaints whatsoever. 

Carry: 2

And here is where we get to something that is not just good, but truly great.  The 605 is small.  Much smaller than it looks, even compared to the Zippo.  So it can fall into a jeans coin pocket with no problem, but it also comes with a very well positioned clip.



Because of the lack of a hump for a thumb hole, the overall size and shape of the 605 is perfectly slim. It just melts into the pocket--vanishing until you need it.  It might be the best carry knife I have ever used, understanding, of course, that smaller knives always carry better.  It carries better than even my beloved Dragonfly 2.  Really only the Small Sebenza 21 is clearly superior in this regard.  And that's great company for a $10 knife. 

Steel: 1

I am still not sold on 8Cr13MoV.  It is much better than I thought it was, especially after busting down the edge on my AG Russell Barlow and rebuilding it entirely.  It can get razor sharp and it is easy as pie to sharpen, but man I'd like a little more edge retention.  Also, if you are going the 8Cr route be sure to skip a beat blast.  That opens up the already rust-loving pores of the steel even more.  In this shiny satin rendition its actually quite good.  Not great, but good. 

Blade Shape: 2

No screwing around, just a simple perfect drop point blade.  I like it a lot.  Its clean and easy to manuever.  It doesn't get junked up with tape or residue from cutting.  There is a good amount of belly. Really, nothing has better demonstrated Occam's Razor for Gear better than the drop point and the drop point here is awesome.  

Grind: 2

I like the full flat grind, especially on a knife this small.  In bigger blades I prefer the slicing ability a hollow grind affords, but on this scale the difference would be negligible.  I will tell you that the grind is kind of weird in that there is a bend right around the 1/3 mark of the blade (counting from the tip towards the pivot).  It looks like a cheap and easy way to thin out the point for piercing, functioning much like a swedge does.  Its appearance is odd, but has no impact on performance.  

Deployment Method: 2  

Oh baby.  A drop of nano oil on the pivot and this thing became a rocket.  It flicks out with telepathic ease.   The thumb stud is well textured and the approach is nice and clear thanks to a cut out that doubles as a finger choil in the open position.  I was shocked at just how good the pivot is on this knife.  Its also worth pointing out that the distance between the pivot and the thumbstud is just right, giving you a great deal of torque or leverage when opening the knife.  

Retention Method: 2 

The 605's small clip is just about perfect.  Its amazingly simple and very polite.  The 605 proves a point and the clip does it the best--simplest is best.  

Lock: 2

If you were worried about the fit and finish of the 605, this is probably the reason why, but in all honesty, it was absolutely fine.  If you poke around on the forums you'll see lots of complaints about the liner lock going too far over to the other side.  I am not sure how much I would rely on complaints about fit and finish on forums, as they are hard to show or verify, but I can see how their could be an issue.  The lock engages and disengages with ease.  There is no rocking when in the locked position and there is a very good detent.  

Overall Score: 19 out of 20

The 605 isn't just a good knife--its a great one.  Its tiny, it falls well into the hand, it hides in the pocket, and it cuts very well.  For about $9 you can't go wrong.  Even if you get one with shitty fit and finish, its not like its unusable and the knife was only $9 after all.  If you get one that has good fit and finish its as close to a $9 Dragonfly as you'll find.  Even with ZERO warranty, or a price that makes shipping a faulty item back silly, I have no problem recommending you try the San Ren Mu 605.  Stop fretting about all of the non-performance related issues with San Ren Mu knives and try this out.  

The Competition

The Mini Aegis and the 605 are in different categories, the 605 is really small, so a direct comparison is hard.  No doubt the Aegis can do all kinds of tasks the 605 can't handle.  Cutting pepperoni would be impossible unless it was the diameter of a Slim Jim, but for a package opener I like the 605 better than the Mini Aegis.   Among other small cheap knives, I llike this much, much better than the Kershaw OD-2.  Its not as taut or elegant as the Benchmade Aphid, a criminally underrated knife, but its close.  Given the price difference, its hard to justify hunting down the Aphid when the 605 is out there.  Both are or were overseas made knives, so that's a draw too.

Seiko SNZG15J1 Review by Andrew

Editor's Note: First, I won't be interrupting this review as often as I did Ben's first review, as a nod to the feedback in the comments.  Second, Andrew and I have been going back and forth about a 20 point scale for watches and this is, as he writes, a beta.  Please drop some input on the effectiveness of the scale here in the comments.

The Seiko 5 Sports SNZG15J1 represents a good balance of real quality and reasonable price (“SNZG15” for short in this article). It is a simple three-handed watch, with a day and date complication. These functions are powered by Seiko’s in-house 7S36 automatic movement, which is a reliable but unremarkable automatic movement. The unpretentious military field watch design is a great EDC choice, with easily readable hourly Arabic markers on the dial.

Here is Crown & Buckle’s video review of this watch on a bracelet (Model designation SNZG13).  Here is their written review. Here is my video review of this watch on a nylon strap (SNZG15, J1 version which is made in Japan).  Here is the watch itself:



Because the wristwatch has many complications, or secondary levels of instrumentality, developing a scoring system which encompasses all watches risks inadequacy. Consider the scoring in this watch review as beta testing for now.

Design: 2

The field watch design featured in the Seiko SNZG15 came into prominence during the 20th century world wars. Simple timekeeping and reliability are the purpose of the field watch, with rugged movements and instrument-like dial design. The SNZG15 makes no innovations on this concept but executes it well in a modern size (42mm case, 12mm thickness, 22mm lug width). For the simple watch it is, it does what it does well.

Provenance: 1

This category is admittedly problematic, as provenance can refer to the history of a specific watch (ex. this Daytona was owned by Eric Clapton, etc.). For our purposes, this category will encompass the legacy of the model or family of the watch generally speaking.  The SNZG15 is part of the Seiko 5 family.  Here is a great overview from Seiko on their “5” family of watches, and here is Gear Patrol’s article on Seiko 5.

The SNZG15 embodies the daily-wear, sports-watch approach of the 5 Sports family. The Seiko 5 family has been around for decades and while there is a huge variety in the line, the core concepts of a reliable movement, durable case, and useful day/date complication (and price as discussed below) are the reasons for their sustained popularity. The set of features of the 5 family has long been recognized in the watch community. On the other hand, it is not historic in the way an Omega Speedmaster Professional (for example) is indisputably considered. 

Fit and Finish (Case/Dial): 2

The 42mm case and crown is bead-blasted which makes the watch appear smaller and follows the military-themed design. The bezel is fixed and is part of the case. The crown seats well in its small indentation in the case. That said, it appears somewhat small given the proportions of the case. The threaded display caseback is more of a novelty for first-time mechanical watch owners as the movement shown is very plain with just the watch’s technical information stamped on the movement.

The dial, chapter ring and day/date wheels are printed flawlessly with crisp typography and good details (military time, minute/seconds indices) for a watch in this price range. The applied “5” Shield is attractive to my eyes. Seiko’s proprietary Lumbrite lume is an industry standard, but on this model it is just applied to the hands and prominent chapter ring surrounding the dial. The lume application is applied evenly on the watch reviewed. The Hardlex crystal is better quality than comparable mineral crystals. Fit and finish overall are easily as good as many $500 Swiss field watches. Some collectors maintain that Japanese Seikos (as is the watch in this review, indicated by the J1 designation) are better than those made in Malaysia and China. I have failed to see a difference when comparing entry-level Seikos. 

Fit and Finish (Strap/Bracelet): 1

Frankly, the SNZG15’s nylon strap is pretty uncomfortable until it is broken in and is probably too thin for the watch. The strap holes are reinforced with a stitched vinyl piece. The buckle is stainless steel and is bead-blasted to match the case. It does fit my 7” wrist without any issues. Fortunately there are many aftermarket options given the watch’s 22mm lug size.

Movement: 1

The automatic 23 jewel Seiko 7s26c has a beat rate of 21600 BPH, which means that the seconds hand has a nice but not entirely fluid sweeping motion and lacks the distinct ticking of a quartz watch. The power reserve is about 40 hours IRL, and the accuracy of the 7s26 is not great at -20 seconds a day/+ 40 seconds a day.



The movement can be tuned to be more accurate of course. The timekeeping is likely the result of mechanized assembly and broad tolerances; the movement is completely lacking ornamentation. This is a fairly rare example of a mechanical movement which may never need service (although regularly maintaining it is always recommended). Lore abounds on the internet as for this last claim.

Functionality: 1

Functionality refers to how this watch achieves its intended design objectives. It is a simple timekeeping watch and it does this well. It has decent water resistance and could probably be worn swimming but no more than that. As the lack of a handwinding option and the average power reserve in the movement suggests, it is meant for regular wear. If it is not regularly worn, it will need to be stored on a watch winder or it will need to be reset when worn again. This may be considered an imperfection from a collector’s perspective as the inevitable resetting can be pretty uninspiring.

Wearabilty: 1

The watch wears smaller than many 42mm watches thanks to the rounded fixed bezel and well-proportioned lug width.



The caseback protrudes from the back of the case. This coupled with the thin nylon strap causes the watch to flop a bit on my 7” flat-topped wrists, but not more than a dive watch in this size. It is a casual watch and is too big in my opinion for formal wear.

Durability: 2

The SNZG15 is probably as durable as any mechanical watch on the market. There are many stories on forums of Seiko 5 watches of similar configuration being worn in military conflicts and for many decades without any attention to servicing the watch. It does lack extreme water resistance, a threaded crown, or magnetic shielding, all features found on higher-end sports watches. 

Purpose: 1

This scoring category is included because some of the watches which I will be reviewing will be highly multifunctional. From an EDC perspective, I want some way to give extra points to watches that are highly multifunctional. Watches like this will establish a baseline.

Appearance: 2

Another category possibly bordering on the subjective, this watch has no egregious aesthetic flaws and is a handsome if somewhat plain watch.



It could easily be mistaken by a non-watch person as a Timex, but the field watch design is venerable to collectors.

Overall Score: 14 out of 20

The SNZG15 is an understated and well-executed entry-level automatic watch. The movement is unrefined and it can only serve simple timekeeping-related purposes, but does so adequately. The handsome overall appearance and wearable size means that it won’t be totally forgotten amidst the higher level watches which inevitably will land on your doorstep as your interest grows in mechanical timepieces. Seiko is a well-regarded watch manufacture and this is a very solid choice in this price range. Few watches indeed would score above a 10/20 at a $100 price point.

Hogue EX-01 4" Auto Review

It has been years since I had a knife store close to me.  When I grew up in Ohio, it was no big deal, but now, living in Massachusetts, it is a rarity.  So much of what makes a knife great is how it feels in your hand and in your pocket.  You can't figure that out over the internet, now matter how hard I have tried.  So when Josh and Jeremiah opened up Merrimack Knife and Tool less than 5 minutes from my office, I was both delighted and a bit afraid.  Well, I wasn't afraid, my wallet was.  About once a month I will skip lunch and go to Merrimack Knife and Tool, and their stock is always impressive.

Jeremiah listens to the podcast and he heard Andrew and I talking about moving outside our comfort zones with gear, so when I asked if they had anything cool in Jeremiah pulled out the Hogue EX01 4" Auto.  It is a HUGE blade.  Its an auto.  And neither of these things are generally in my wheelhouse.  But with both Andrew and Dan singing the praises of Hogue's stuff, I decided to check it out.  

Here is the product page. The EX-01 costs around $215. Here is a written and video review by Edge Observer.   You can go to Merrimack Knife and Tool to see the EX-01 and a huge selection of other knives.   Here is my review sample (loaned to be my MKT and returned already):



Twitter Review Summary: Solid fundamentals with a small issue related to the auto

Design: 2

All of Hogue's knives are designed by Allen Elishewitz.  Allen is a well known custom knife maker and has worked with a number of the biggest names in blades before designing stuff for Hogue.  He has a number of designs in the current CRKT catalog as well as a number of out of production blades for them.  He has also worked with Benchmade and produced what I think is his best design--the Ares.  Sometimes Allen's line get a little busy for my tastes, such as the odd stepped thumb studs found on some of his CRKT designs, but the EX-01 follows the Ares in its simplicity.  The knife looks clean and the overall size of the blade, despite being 4 inches long, doesn't feel all that huge.  This is largely because of the placement of the pivot pin, which is very close to the end of the handle.  The aluminum is slick but the shape of the handle is just right, making sure the blade stays put.

There are two things I am not a fan of--the pivot area and the secondary lock.  The pivot area is extra busy, not unlike the pivot area on the Benchmade Emissary.



Its not as bad as the Emissary, so I am going to leave the score as a two, but it is something to note. Second, I am not sure why there is a secondary lock on this blade.  The amount of travel needed to fire the blade is large and I never had any issues with accidental deployment.  Again, like with the Emissary, I feel like the secondary lock's main role is a psychological one as opposed to an actual functional one.  Getting rid of the lock would also clean up the pivot area.  

The knife's ratios aren't too bad. The blade:handle is .82.  This is very competitive, especially among larger knives.  The blade:weight is .71, which is less impressive, but something that is not surprising given the size of the blade.

Fit and Finish: 2

I was convinced that I was going to be able introduce blade play into the EX-01.  First, its an auto and there is almost always a bit of slop in the blade to allow the spring mechanism to work (none here out out of the box).  Second because it was a big knife I planned on using it for big knife tasks.  One of my son's favorite things to do is grab sticks for use in fighting imaginary bad guys or breaking up ice on the surface of water (well in the winter time that is what he does).  So I decided to chop up a few sticks so they were a manageable size for him and in doing so I thought I'd be able introduce some blade play.  These were frozen, rock hard sticks.  After some serious whacking, chopping, and twisting I had nothing like blade play.

Everything about the knife was immaculately finished.  Hogue's fit and finish is on par with companies like Benchmade, which is quite impressive.  Their start as a grip maker for firearms no doubt helps with the precision manufacturing of their knives--they are used to the finnicky demands of gear folks.  Every edge, every cut, and every grind was clean, thoughtful, and well done.  All of this leads to a knife that is remarkable in the hand and more durable than one would expect with both an auto and a button lock.

Grip: 1

The shape of the grip is fine.  In fact, with gloves on the knife stays put quite well.  Its only when you take the gloves off that you discover a problem.  You might be able to deduce what it is from this picture:



After years of using G10 knives, an all aluminum knife, like an all titanium knife is quite cold and slick when it is cold outside.  Unlike some other all-metal handled knives, the Hogue's finish is slick, so its not a stay-putish like the Sebenza.  Additionally because this is a larger, harder use folder than say the tiny Spyderco Tencho, there needs to be more grip than slick aluminum affords.  I am not opposed to aluminum or all-metal handles on principle, but like everything else they need to be appropriate for the intended use.  Its not a big deal, but just enough to make me score this a 1.  If I had a more graduated scale I might score this as a 1.5, but I don't so there you have it.  

Carry: 2

Its hard difficult to stress how nicely this knife carries.  For a 4 inch knife it is very, very slim and secure thanks to an excellently placed and shaped pocket clip.  This is one place where the slick and light aluminum helps.

 

Note just how far down the clip goes.  That prevents a lot of the pendulum feel that you get with big knives.  Comparing this to the ZT0560, the difference is night and day and this knife is actually bigger than the ZT0560.

Steel: 2

I don't like coated blades, but this one was okay.  It held up to some serious chopping.  The more I do with 154CM the more I like it and the more I understand why Emerson is so infatuated with it.  There is a lot that it does well and very little it does poorly.  This particular blade was very nice--sharp, held an edge for a long time, and yielded positive results from stropping. 

My experience with 154CM is also an excellent example of the danger of small sample sizes.  When I first started the blog my onlly experience with 154CM was on a Benchmade Sequel and my Skeletool CX.  The Sequel rusted like crazy.  I literally could not keep it clean.  And the Skeletool's blade, especially inside the thumb hole, would occasionally get rusty.  From those two experiences I swore off the steel and that was a mistake.  Now, three years later, I have much more experience with 154CM and I am certain that the Sequel was a lemon.  The Skeletool's issues are largely due to what I use that blade for--rough, beater work--more so than the steel.  In the end, after years of close analysis, I can say without reservation that 154CM is a superior steel.  

Blade Shape: 2

A simple blade shape is a thing of beauty:

A lot of Allen's designs are a big out there when it comes to blade shape and though I have not used them, they make me a little worried.  Even in the Hogue line there are some exotic blade shapes.  Now I will admit that the Zulu has taught me to use before I judge, but no matter what, I am drawn to simple shapes and this blade is just elegant.

The belly is quite nice for roll cuts and the straight portion is very long allowing for excellent slicing and stable, easy push cuts (such as debarking a limb).  The swedge at top is unsharpened but accomplishes its task--making for good piercing--with ease.  This is a great blade shape.

Grind: 2

A simple very shallow hollow (or possibly flat) grind that makes chopping easy.  Hogue did nothing crazy here.  I will note that the cutting bezel is a bit skinny, making the knife a better chopper than slicer, but such is to be expected with a hard use auto of this size.  The EX-01 isn't going to run with the Dragonfly or the Air in terms of slicing ability, but it is better than the slicing capacities of the PT CC, which also has that "high durability" thin cutting bevel.  I realize it is a tradeoff and in this role, Hogue made the right choice.  If this were purely an EDC knife, I'd prefer more of a slicer.

Deployment Method: 0

Okay so if you go watch the overview video (embedded above) you will see the only real flaw this knife has--the coil spring is not tuned correctly and it is not uncommon for the blade to be shot out of the handle and not lock in position because it bounces off the stop pin.  I have never seen this before, on any knife, either an auto or an assist, so it was pretty startling.  It is a perfect example of why autos are simply unnecessary in this day and age.  I'd much rather this knife be a flipper than an auto--less parts, less complication.  

While I feel confident that the score of zero is correct, I will say that the deployment is not a total failure.  It will work 85% of the time and most of the time simply moving the knife will carry the blade in the locked position, but the whole idea of an auto is that it deploys 100% of the time.  If the auto can't do that then it failed at is job, hence the 0.

Retention Method: 2

The broad spoon clip is great.  It locks the knife in your pocket AND it is doesn't interfere with your grip at all both because it is remarkably low profile and it is made of very thin steel.

I will note that despite its very low profile Hogue managed to get the tension and upturn at the tip just right because you can slide this knife in and out of the pocket without looking or helping it along.  Great clip, even if its not terribly discrete.

Lock: 2

This knife cured me of my fears of button locks.  As my first button lock review I am happy to say that the lock worked flawlessly.  Having seen the mechanism up close I am confident that it will not fail and that Hogue's machining capabilities are right there with anyone in the cutlery business, maybe save KAI USA.  The design is both ingenious and easy to use.  You can close the knife without putting your fingers in the blade path and that is a big deal.  Look for more button locks in the future.

Overall Score: 17 out of 20

I liked the EX-01 a lot.  As a hard use knife, it was great.  It was surprisingly cooperative in the pocket and the simple grind and blade shape made it a superior cutting tool.  If you absolutely need your knife to deploy every single time, check the EX-01 unit you have before you buy it if you can.  I may have gotten something of a lemon.  The auto mechanism's problems aren't really a big deal if you don't need guaranteed 100% deployment and for a weekend hiker like myself its not a big deal at all.  But if you are an EMT/Mil/LEO person be aware of that.  In gloved hands the knife is truly amazing.  In non-gloved hands the slick and cold aluminum may be an issue.  Those two things aside this is an outstanding knife.  If this were a G10 flipper it would score higher.   

ASIDE

Hogue, if you read this, please, take note that you need to make a knife with a blade at or under 3 inches.  A blade that is under 3 inches is very broadly acceptable (of course, check your local laws).  To have NO knives in your line up that comply with legal restrictions in some states is just a bad business decision.  You leave your customers with an unsolvable dilemma: either not carry your knife or do so and break the law.  This is a poor business decision and something that needs to be remedied immediately.  I believe you are the only major knife brand sold in the US that has NO knives in their product line at or under 3 inches.  That is a real problem.

END ASIDE

The Competition

Obviously the Hogue is a bigger and more sunstantial knife than the benchmark blade, the SOG Mini Aegis.  But for a weekend hiker and EDC person like myself, the extra size, heft, and full auto don't matter.  The better blade steel is a plus, but I am not sure which I would choose.  If I were going to really depend on the knife like EMS/Mil/LEOs do, the Hogue would automatically win.    

Why the Gear Industry is Awesome

This is a tale of two customer service adventures. Like cities, it was the best of times and the worst of times. One involves a return of a knife to Brous Blades. The other involves a return of a product to an online-only clothing company. This isn't designed to bash a company, but demonstrate just how amazing our slicing the marketplace really is.

The Best Of Times

When Jim Skelton previewed the Brous Bionic on his YouTube channel, I was pumped. I have been looking for a small, mid-priced flipper for a long time. Like my obsession with knives the size of the Dragonfly, this is my next great hunt. I have tried quite a few, including the good but flawed Surefire Jekyll, the totally meh Benchmade 300SN, and the good, but slightly too big Spyderco Domino. So as you can see, the Bionic could have very well been the knife I am hunting.



When the Bionic came I was thrilled. Its surprisingly light. The flipping action was a smooth as silk, as is the case on most Brous knives I have handled. Even the normally hard to polish D2 looked good. And the coloring of the handle's anondization was outstanding.

But there were a few negative points. They were actually points. First the flipper was quite pokey. It wasn't a big deal, but it was not as rounded and finger-friendly as it should be. Second, the jimping on the handle right where your finger lands after flipping open the knife was especially sharp. So sharp, in fact, that it drew blood after exactly seven flips open and closed (I counted aware right away that it could pose a problem). Third, the two points at the end of the handle opposite the pivot were unpleasantly sharp. Fourth, the tip of the blade was so close to the end of the handle that it was snagging fabric and, on occasion, the tip of my finger.

All of this was not good. The knife is relatively inexpensive, but at $159 its not a throwaway import blade. The insert in the Bionic's tube provided Jason's email account (or one of his email accounts, I'd hope he has other), so I emailed him. I sent him a picture of my finger and less than 48 hours later I had an email from Brous instructing me to send the knife back and a promise that he'd fix it. That was it. No offers for a refund or some long convoluted set of return instructions. "Send it to me. I got your back." When you have a problem, even one as minor as a pokey pocket knife, that's what you want to hear.

The Worst of Times

I browse the Internet. I am sure you do as well. And on occasion you see something that makes you excited. You think: "Geez this is so amazing. I am glad the Internet exists so that I could find this thing." It might be the Pebble or a grocery delivery service or a way to renew prescriptions automatically. Its something you have been wanting for a while and you finally found it. In my case I have a particular article of clothing that I have always wanted a nicer version of, but for reasons that have a lot to do with the exporting of clothing manufacturing, this particular article of clothing, in a nicer form, did not exist.

This isn't a piece of clothing that Triple Aught Design has had the opportunity to upgrade or improve. This isn't some high tech wonder garment made of SPACE FIBER 3000. This isn't a Savile Row suit. Its a pretty basic thing that I wanted a nicer version of--that's it. But there was nothing out there until I stumbled across this garment. BANG. I wanted it. But it was about three weeks from Christmas, so I asked for it as a gift instead. Christmas arrived and so did the garment. It was exceedingly nice. Great in fact. But it was sized for, um, smaller people. I am not a Greek God, I got myself a little 36 year old flab, but I am not fat. Nor am I an NBA center. I am 5'10", 180 pounds. This garment wouldn't have fit me, despite being called a large, if I were five inches shorter and thirty pounds lighter. I get a little tightness around the belly, but the arms were the real issue. They were comically short and this is before the shirt went through the wash.

No problem, I thought, I can send it back. The box it came in even included a return mailer. So a few days after Christmas I bundled everything up and sent it back with a request for the next size up. A few days go by. Then a few weeks. Nothing. So I send an email to the company asking what's up. They get back to me with an automated email response telling me someone will respond shortly. I'd prefer a real person, but whatever. Then I did get a response from a real person, telling me that they had received nothing from me. That was strange. They asked if I had some product number or order number. I told them: a) I got it as a gift so I don't have the ordering information and b) as per their instructions I packaged everything up for a return. They looked into the matter and came back a few days later telling me, oh by the way, we don't handle our own returns and they still hadn't received anything.

This struck me as incredibly odd. Why would a company, especially a clothing company that sells stuff ONLY on the Internet, not handle their returns? Surely they have had people order the wrong size or color before. My wife gets stuff from Boden all the time and their return policies are flawless and the process is simple. I have ordered and returned stuff from LL Bean with equal easy. Contracting out your returns is, quite literally, contracting our your customer service. It was annoying but I chalked it to them being a new, small company.

Then they told me they don't do exchanges, just refunds. WAIT, WHAT!??!?! Yeah, they sell clothes and if you get the wrong size they won't send you a replacement. I checked their website, which has a large and prominent section on their return policy, and nowhere was that mentioned. Some digging through an FAQ (why, pray tell, do you need an FAQ for returns? LL Bean's policy is one sentence: Return anything at anytime for a refund or exchange.) and sure enough in the fine print it says they don't do exchanges, just refunds. Okay, that is super annoying, especially because if a person gets a refund they can just buy the thing that actual need, so why go through the process of a refund instead of an exchange (I know why, to boost sales numbers, but still)? They then told me the refund goes to the gift giver, not to me. Stupid, I get it, but whatever. So I ask if I can just use the refund to purchase the next size up, essentially making it an exchange. Oh no, sorry you can't do that, I am told. Now, its on. This is total fucking horseshit. I ask why and I am told they don't have any in stock. I ask for a different color. Nope, out of stock too. I ask for a slightly different version. Out of stock. I ask to get something different and I will throw in cash. Sorry, not possible. Finally, after some rather serious and upset emails (I am, in case you don't know, a very low key person in real life, I NEVER get serious outside my job), they agreed to do an exchange. They tell me the next size up should be available sometime in February.

Well, February came and almost went when a package arrived from the company. I was sort of amazed and realized I was going to have to pull this post....until I opened the bag and was nearly choked to death by a chemical smell akin the malodorous fumes of a meth lab. The item I was shipped was either used to wipe down vats at said meth lab or it was used, "deordorized" and then sent to me. Closer inspection showed me a couple of things that indicated that this item was used. Look, I love used clothes. I love the feel of a broken in pair of jeans or a comfy jacket. I just don't like having people pay for new stuff and getting used stuff instead. With their incredibly small stock, I would imagine that they just give returned items a quick spray repackage them and send them to people on their waiting list for garments. BAD MOJO.

This company has spent a kazillion dollars on advertising. They have really nice product placements. They have a hi-rez campaign with excellent video and photos. They have quaint making-of videos. They have an awesome logo and actually nice products. They were featured in large newspapers and big shill websites (another reason you should never trust shill websites, as if the copious amount of Gerber stuff on their isn't warning enough), all of which praised their products and their Made in the USA story. But in the end, its about the customer and here, this darling of the internet, the emblem of the new craft movement in the USA, farms out their customer service, makes exchanges impossible, has no stock, and has a terrible process for returning their items. All of the slick HDR pics and praise from business cognescenti cannot help this company. Absent changes, and assuming this experience is representative, they will be gone before my 18-month desk calendar is. This is simply not how you do business, especially now when stores like Nordstrom and LL Bean exist in the same space with vastly superior customer service.

Conclusion

Every company, every object made by man can have flaws. The flaws are not how you judge a company or a product or even a man. Its how he (or it, in the case of a company) responds to those flaws that matters. And in our little part of the huge capitalist marketplace, our people, gear geeks--knife knuts and flashaholics--tend to be good people. When stuff goes wrong, they have your back. These two stories illustrate a world of difference. Brous puts his email in the package (I feel like that guy in Tommy Boy asking for a guarantee on the box). He responds quickly and personally to an issue. And his response is: I'll take care of it, send it to me and it will get fixed. This other company, from outside our little enclave of gear, is all flash and no substance. They literally farm out their customer service. That shows how much they care about us, the customer.

The gear business is still relatively small, but it has been, in my experience, uniformly superior to other parts of the economy. AG Russell has personally responded to my questions. Thomas W came on my podcast. Jason Brous responded to my email. That is customer service. And here is the killer thing about Brous--I am fairly certain he has no idea I run this site or the podcast or even who I am. I never told him (not that it would matter, after all I am just a paper pushing lawyer that likes to go outside and play with cool shit). He's just that decent of a guy.

Maybe it is the fact that the gear business has roots in small town America. Maybe it is the fact that the people selling this stuff know we rely on it and want us to feel like we can rely on them. Maybe it is the fact that the gear folks know intuitively what a Wharton MBA tells big companies--customer servicce sells. Whatever it is, this slice of the market is filled with pretty decent people. Sure there are exceptions and sure you can have a bad experience with anyone, but I have had very good dealings with just about everyone I have met and talked to. And that is, as my experience with the other company has shown, incredibly rare these days.

ArmyTek Viking Review

Ben was kind enough to help out with a review of the Armytek Partner and both Ben and I shared the same opinion--it was a decidedly outdated light.  But having handled more than my fair share of flashlights since I launched this site I could see that there were good bones.  Armytek was on to something with the light.  There were touches that demonstrated a concern for the right things and features that exhibited a much better than average build quality.  

In many ways Armytek is a brand that has developed almost independent of other brands.  They are design and built in Canada.  Their line is made up of light that are very different from the mainstream.  These aren't badge swaps or rebrands.  They have a different approach to anondizing, resulting in a thick, almost chalky feel that is truly impressively tough.  They have a focus on beam quality that seems absent from many brands.  They had a diffusing film on the lens of the Partner, a weird way to smooth out a beam, but the fact that it was there was an indication they were worried about the right parts of a flashlight.  The clickies feel different from other clickies.  Over and over again there were small things that made both the Viking and the Partner stand out from the crowd.  

The Viking is a much better light than the Partner, even when you compare them not to each other but to similar lights.  I have reviewed a few 18650 lights and the Viking does a few things better than any of them.  There are some small dings, but overall the Viking is a sweet, sweet light.  In particular I am blown away by the beam.  This light that cuts through the darkness like a sword through fog.  Its probably too big to be an EDC light, but there are other reasons to own a flashlight.  

Here is the product page. The ArmyTek Viking costs around $90. Here is a written review. Here is a video review. Here is a link to Amazon where you can find the Viking (sales benefit the site):



Finally, here is the review sample sent to me by Armytek (to be given away):



Twitter Review Summary: Bleeding edge emitter and very good beam for an excellent 18650 light

Design: 2

This is a fat light.  The head is positively huge, especially for the overall size.  But it doesn't stray into the insane territory.  If the beam weren't so good it wouldn't be worth the trade off, but here, it is good enough to make up for the bulk.  The grip ring, a first for lights I have reviewed, is helpful.  More on that later.

The light can run on an 18650 OR 2xCR123as and that flexibility is greatly appreciated.  Its a touch that shows that Armytek has planned things out and that this not another me too design.  So often with 18650 lights, the manufacturer assumes a degree of flashlight nerdiness, such that the end line user is expected to have an 18650 cell, a charger, and no need for emergency power from readily available primary cells.  Not here.  The light doesn't come with an 18650 cell, which is kind of a bummer, but the fact that it can use primaries makes up for it.  And really, if you are buying a light this expensive, just spring for the 18650 as well.  Note this is different from the FourSevens MMX-U review in that that light REQUIRED a specific cell that was both not readily available and not supplied with the light.  

Here is a shot compared to the ubiquitous Mini Mag.

The stats are good, this is a screamer when it comes to lumens.  The total lumens output is found on high at 161,600 (the specs have the light running at 1010 lumens for 160 minutes).  The lumens:weight is 136.49.  The total lumens output is by far the best number I have ever seen.  I am not sure if that is because how bright the light is or how the lumens are calculated.

Fit and Finish: 2 

The Partner was not a poorly made light, it was just boring and out of date.  The Viking is neither of those.  This is a very, very well made torch, sitting in the same league as the nicer Surefires.  That is a huge compliment, but it is well-deserved.  It is a stoutly build--the chalky anodizing is good, the threads are smooth and tight.  The clicky is quite nice.  The reflector is a great smooth reflector (resulting in a superlative beam).  The emitter is well centered.  There is absolutely nothing to complain about here.

Grip: 2

The grip ring is the first I have used and it is quite excellent.  It really locks the hand in place and gives you a great deal of control.  I don't like the spongy rubber it is made of and the grip ring can move around a bit, but overall it is nice.  



Even without the grip ring the Viking is a very good like in the hand, thanks to a just-the-right-size body tube.  I like the whole set up a great deal.  But all of this grippiness comes at a cost...

Carry: 0

Either in the sheath that it comes with or the pocket clip that it comes with, the Viking is a nightmare to carry.  The rubber grip ring is unmanageable and the the head it just enormous.  The end result is there is no real way to carry this light without a pack or bag.  The sheath, as most free sheathes are, is pretty atrocious.  This makes me wonder just how Leatherman is able to make not just good, but truly spectacular sheathes, when no one else has--from high end production knife companies to high end flashlight companies like Armytek.  I'd be more upset about the Viking's poor carry if it weren't for the fact that this is not REALLY anyone's idea of an EDC light.  Even though it is about medium sized form an 18650 light, this is really a thrower for pack or bag carry.  

Output: 2

There are four output modes, from the full 1010 lumens down to a twinkly 8 lumens and two other levels in between.  The spacing is good and the high is plenty bright, but, as is usual, it is the low that makes the light so appealing.  A good low can do a lot of things and make a light significantly more useful than it otherwise would be.  For all of the flexibility with the outputs, their utility is hampered by a convoluted UI. 

Runtime: 2

As with most lights that have an 18650 cell and a single digit low, the runtimes here are more than acceptable.  If you dig a little though you might notice that the Viking's runtimes are really incredible on high.  In fact, the Armytek Viking has the best runtimes for a high over 800 lumens I have ever seen.  According to the specs, the Viking can run at FULL max for 160 minutes.  Most lights, like the TX25C2 or the SC600 Mk. II drop down after a few minutes of "max burst" to their true max level.  According to the specs for the Viking, this doesn't happen.  I have run it on high for about twenty minutes with no noticeable loss of output so it just might be true.  If so, this is so much better than other lights in the class, that the Viking, on paper, is a huge standout.  If someone out there with an integrating sphere and computer programs tells me that the light drops down after a while I wouldn't be surprised, but based on the specs and my own eyes, Armytek's claims just might be right.  

Beam Type: 2

And now we get to the heart of what makes this light so unique.  There are dedicated throwers out there and there are lights that try to do throw by constricting the beam pattern (Surefire), but the Viking is a light that does not resort to bulbous mushroom heads but still has real and legitimate distance in the beam.  The Viking easily hit the far end of the football field around my house, with more than a few feet to spare.  But suffice to say, this is a true thrower and in that role it is very good.  The head is big and makes the light somewhat awkward to carry, but it is nothing like the specialized heads on other lights.  Because the Viking can strike that balance, its awarded a 2.  

Beam Quality: 2

Like the decision to go for a thrower, despite the relatively small head, the quality of the beam on the Viking is superb.  There are no artifacts, rings, or spots.  While not a Hi CRI light, the review sample had a pleasant tint.  Finally there a smooth and useful transition from the hotspot to the spill.  Its easy to look at the light, what it can do in the dark, and see this is a well above average beam.  Excellent job. 

UI: 1

For all of the wonderful outputs and the great spacing between them, the UI on the Viking is a bit convoluted.  It uses both a twist of the head and a click.  Its not bad, it is just requires a bit of forethought and precision, something you would prefer not to have in a flashlight UI.  The problem comes with getting to the low lumens modes.  With the head tightened all the way, the light is "locked" into a "tactical" mode where the press of the clicky produces the max output.  A second press will do nothing.  But if you loosen the head "1/8" of a turn (yes, the instructions specify 1/8 of a turn) the light drops into a more user friendly mode where clicky presses will get you lower lumens counts.  The idea that the light is locked in to a tactical mode is somewhat misleading because you have to check the head tightness to make sure its locked in, the very definition of something not being locked it.  Second, the need for both a twist and a press to get into the more useful modes is unnecessary.  The UI on the EagleTac TX25C2 is just better.  In fact a straight clicky or twisty UI would be better.  Combining the two in this bifurcated UI kind of way is not ideal.  It works, but it is not ideal.  

Hands Free: 1

The Viking doesn't roll, but it can't tailstand.  Also, given the size and weight of the head there's no way you put this thing in your teeth. 

Overall Score: 16 out of 20

While it "only" scores a 16, that is in part because of the limitations of this scoring system (or any scoring system for that matter).  The runtime on high, the output on high, the beam quality and its ability to light up targets far away is really remarkable.  The runtime, the beam type and beam quality could have earned a 3, but doing so would break the scoring system.  Since the review is really a combination of text and score I can explain that easily.  But keep that in mind when comparing 18650 lights to each other.  Again, this isn't the most EDC friendly light in the world, with its bulbous head, chalky anondizing, and rubber grip ring, but for a thrower, you'd be hard pressed to find anything better of equivalent size.

The Competition

Against the FourSevens MMR-X, the Viking is better on runtime on high by a large margin, but the UI on the MMR-X is better.  The Viking is not really in the same class as the TX25C2 and the SC 600 Mk. II as they are basically EDC lights that squeeze in a bigger battery and the Viking is a true mid sized light.  I'd probably take the MMR-X over the Viking for general use, but if you need throw, the Viking is the way to go.  Compared to the Fenix, well there is no real comparison.  The lights are just too different.  This is an interesting entry in the flashlight market and definitely a sign that Armytek knows what they are doing.

Correction and Update:

Some of the comments below indicated that Armytek is not made in Canada, despite their website being festooned with the Canadian flag.  I reached out to my contact at Armytek and here is the conversation:

Dear Armytek,

Some of my readers have questioned the origins of the Armytek lights.  They claim that the lights are made and designed overseas, but I have nothing to confirm this.  Any insights?

Thanks.
 
Tony

And Armytek's response:

Dear Tony,

The flashlights are designed by a team of Canadian and European engineers in Canada. But they are assembled in China - it's true. We have our own manufacture in China where the lights are ONLY assembled from the components imported from the USA and Japan. The reason for a such location choice is simple - we want to make compatible prices for our products so that our customers pay for the technology and parameters not for the "made in Canada" label. I think you understand that it's cheaper to assemble the products there (such company as Apple even has factories in China =))
So to make it clear - the lights are not designed overseas. And it can't be told that they are made in China because all the electronic and light components are imported there. But it's true that the flashlights are assembled in China - we have our own 6-floor factory there =)

I hope I've answered your question =)    

I hope this clarifies the point.  The lights are not made in Canada, but designed there.  The parts aren't made in China, but are assembled there.  I think if you did digging you'd find that a lot of companies in and out of the gear world do something like this.  I am not condoning or condemning it, just pointing out the reality of the situation.  Regardless of country of origin, I liked the Armytek Viking quite a bit.    

The Business Side of Gear: Intellectual Property, Part II

The response to the first part of this series was good.  I appreciate the feedback over email and on Twitter.  I am also thrilled that there weren't too many errors in the content itself.  So let's look at the other IP white meat: trademarks.  Again, this isn't legal advice.  I am not an IP lawyer.  In fact, very little of my legal training went into writing these articles.  None in fact.  It was basically stuff cobbled together from Google, the USPTO, and Wikipedia.  

Trademarks

Trademarks are different than patents. Patents are intended to protect inventions. Trademarks are designed to protect a company's identity. You trademark items that are associated with your brand, like your logo, your slogan, or other distinctive characteristics of a  company. You can also trademark other things that are distinctively associated with a brand. Burberry had a trademark on a pattern of plaid while NBC has a trademark on the three tone sound, called the NBC chimes ("N...B...C" or even more abstractly, three descending notes). The key with trademarks is that they are established by using them. They are protected to the extent that they are used. Once they fall out of use, they are unprotected. For example, if you trace the lineage of Ka-Bar back far enough you will find that the company (not called Ka-Bar then) used a trademark "Tidoute" for their knives. When the original company that owned the facilities where Ka-Bar is now closed down, that trademark fell out of use. It remained dormant until Great Eastern Cutlery started using it again. The trademark switched from one company to another because it was in use, out of use, and then in use again.

Additionally, if a trademark is so widely synonymous with a product or class of products, it can lose its protection. For example, Kleenex is a trademark on the verge of losing protection, also known as genericide (a pormanteau of generic and suicide), because it is synonymous with tissues. Trademarks do not expire and they can be licensed (like Lucas licensing Star Wars to toy companies).  Finally, trademarks can be geographically specific AND industry specific.  It may not be infringement for two companies to call themselves the same thing (or similar sound things) if they are in different industries, like Lexus cars and Lexis legal research services, or if they are in different parts of the country.

The story on the Internet, though there is little documentation to support this (even when you search under Sal's real name Louis S. Glesser; I search both the Patent and Trademark Office for any combination of the following: Sal Glesser, Louis Glesser, Louis S. Glesser, Eric Glesser, Gail Glesser, Spyderco, Spyderco Knives, Opening Hole, Deployment Hole, Byrd, Byrd Knives, Comet, Comet Hole, and Spyderco Hole and I got nothing, except for the Bali-Yo patent; remember though that a trademark need not be registered to be protected, so finding nothing doesn't mean that there is no trademark, just that it is not a registered one), is that Spyderco had a patent for the hole opener and then filed for a trademark once the patent expired.



It is certainly the case that within the knife industry, the hole is treated like it is subject to a trademark, as many custom makers license the hole (rumor is that the licensing fee is donated to a Denver childrens hospital because Sal is da man). For that reason, I'll assume the story is right without being able to find the documentation to support it. The Spyderco trademark is the hole as a method of opening. Their site indicates that there is a lot of associated features that go along with this, but this is somewhat unique, as trademarks are designed to protect brand identifiers and not inventions, though I think at this point the opening hole is both.

Counterfeits, Clones, and Homages

All of this background leads us to the meat of the issue--counterfeits, clones, and homages. 

Before we get to that there is a rule of thumb that seems important to mention--a piece of intellectual property is valuable only to the extent that you can defend it in court. If you are small company, like Spyderco, all of the patents and trademarks in the world won't help you if you can't afford to fight the big guys in court. Take the Spyderco hole for example. There are a number of legal arguments you could make attacking the trademark. You could claim that because other holes are used as opening devices, the hole is not uniquely associated with Spyderco. You could point to the fact that a few Spyderco knives don't even have a hole (the Jess Horn for example). You could also claim that the hole as a trademark is really just an improper extension of the patent that expired. I am not sure the merits of any of these arguments, but as a lay person I can see them being something big companies could say in litigation with Spyderco and if Spyderco doesn't have the money to fight those fights, even if they are the "rightful" holder in the minds of knife knuts around the world, they lose. IP is valuable only to the extent you can protect it. The proof of this is just how aggressive and litigious Mag Light is. They have engaged in legal action with many companies for things as insignificant as wording around the flashlight bezel. But they win and they sue because they have the money to protect their IP.

Let's get one thing out of the way, right away. You cannot sue someone for making a knife that looks like yours unless they copied something that you patented or something you have trademarked. The fact that the San Ren Mu 704 LOOKS like the Sebenza is not enough. It may be a clone but clones, absent infringement, are legal. The problem with a lot of stuff out there is that it doesn't merely LOOK like the item, it claims to be the item.  That is a counterfeit. A Kevin Johns Hinderer often has Hinderer's logo on it, which is trademarked, and the Hinderer Overtravel Stop, which is patented.  Here is the REAL DEAL:



Both things constitute a violation of intellectual property rights. But there are two problems associated with enforcing the rights--first, Hinderer is a small company and the deep pockets principle comes into play; second, it is hard to enforce IP rights internationally. As such the Kevin Johns stuff does appear to violate Hinderer's IP rights, but there is little that can be done about it. Additionally, it is important to distinguish between stuff that infringes on IP rights and stuff that is contraband. The Kevin Johns stuff, so long as it comports with local knife laws, is not contraband--that is it is not a crime merely to possess it. I found that lots of people don't know the difference between civil and criminal actions and most IP issues are civil in nature, especially possessing counterfeit products (counterfeit money or government documents is an entirely different matter).  It may be a crime to sell it, as there are laws that criminalize trademark infringement, but it is not a crime to possess it, simply because it is a true counterfeit.

And so we get to the distinctions that matter. Kevin Johns Hinderers are counterfeit--they look like the real thing and claim to be the real thing, but aren't and are not licensed copies. The San Ren Mu 704 is totally different. It is a clone (or rip off) of the Sebenza, but does not claim to be the real thing. Absent some infringement, it is perfectly legal to make and sell. It may be distasteful, but law and morality are two different things (for good reasons--you don't want my morality to govern your actions anymore than I want yours to govern mine).

Then there are the homages. The Scott Cook Lochsa is an homage to the Sebenza, albeit a much upgraded one. It looks like the original, but not exactly like it and does not claim to be the original. This is not only wholly legal, but it actually one of the ways art and design propagates.

Interesting IP in the Gear World

There are a bunch of IP rights in the gear world that are interesting. Here is my take on some of them:

Emerson Wave: The patent runs out sometime between now and 2017. After that it will be interesting to see what happens. Hopefully Ernie has a plan and perhaps he will follow in Spyderco's footsteps and parlay the patent into a trademark if he hasn't done so already. I would imagine that the expiration of the patent is, perhaps, one of the reasons why we are seeing the Emerson/KAI collaborations in 2014 (which is the earliest the patents could expire). Note also how the Demko patent on the "waveable" thumb plate seems to be very close to the actual Emerson patent.   Both are patented though.



Case Sodbuster: Of all of the IP in the gear world this is, without question, the most dubious from a legal perspective. Case trademarked the name "sodbuster" but apparently the Trademark office was asleep at the switch and ignored the facts. First, the sodbuster pattern is old. It did not originate with Case, neither the pattern nor the name. The Eye Brand of Germany is likely the original user of the name "sodbuster". Nor did it ever fall out of use. Sodbusters of various brands have been made almost continuously for at least 80 years. But for whatever reason, the Trademark Office granted Case's application and now no one can say they make a Sodbuster other than Case.

Kit Carson Flipper: Well there is no way to trademark the flipper and there is probably no way to go back and patent it, but this the perfect example of what happens when an invention is released into the wild without intellectual property protections--nothing bad happens for the consumer (though I would imagine Kit would like the royalties from everyone and their mother copying his idea). I wish Kit Carson would get more money and recognition for his design, but in reality the average gear geek has benefited from the fact that the flipper wasn't patented. This is a perfect case study in why intellectual properties aren't necessarily all a good thing. Its complicated. On the one hand inventors get credit and profit from their inventions. On the other, those inventions can get stuck with one company and that company uses the exclusivity a patent or trademark creates to charge way more than the product is really worth. This says nothing for the patent troll battles that clog up the courts and stifle innovation.

Stan Wilson Bolster Flipper: Take a peek. This is the coolest thing I have seen in knives in years. Run, do not walk to the patent office, Mr. Wilson. Copy cats are looming in the offing, once they can figure out how you did this.

If you are an inventor and want to secure your property rights, there are lots of folks, IP lawyers, that can help you. There are also organizations that will buy your patents. There are organizations that will take a percentage of profits from your patent in exchange for providing defense of the patent in court. There are law firms that specialize in patent applications and different firms that specialize in patent litigation. There are similar firms for trademarks, copy rights, and trade secrets.

Hopefully this information will give you some perspective on the gear we love and how big money and big business will try to exploit IP rights as our little corner of the market goes from mom and pop to global corporations. Let's hope that the Spydercos of the world survive and benefit from the ingenuity while at the same time great innovations get into the marketplace naturally and cheaply, like the Carson flipper.

If you are interested in more looks at the business side of gear, let me know, either in the comments or by email (everydaycommentary at gmail dot com, in the usual format).