I dont think its a bad place to look, but in my experiences Ive been able to find most things for the same price, or less, on Amazon. And I trust Amazon more. Plus 2 day free shipping.
This. There is no such thing as "fair market value" for knives, and there are a lot of people out there who try every which way to screw others out of money. If a place like Knifecenter or GPKnives is a 10 for honesty and customer service, then your local pawn shop is a 5 or 6, and Ebay is a 3. It's not quite as bad as giving some random hobo money and telling him to go buy you a knife.
If you see a knife on Ebay that you like, look at the pictures. It's not a guarantee, but reputable dealers tend to put up more pictures of the item, and they're better quality pictures, too.
Try to find the seller somewhere else on the web. If they have a brick and mortar store, or a professional-looking website, then you're probably good (probably). But if you can't pronounce the name of the seller, or if it's mis-spelled (or if you can't tell whether their name is spelled right or not!), then maybe skip that one.
I don't think there is one. It would be nice to be able to say that any knife between number X and number Y, will have a comfortable and secure grip, like I did earlier with the perimeter and aspect ratio.
But now we're talking about the design of the entire knife handle, so any single number will be an abstraction, which represents the surface area for a given length of handle, or some other blah blah blah that is really hard to explain without seven pages of pictures and context.
The Greeks had the "Golden Ratio", and it's somehow related to the Fibonacci Sequence. The only thing it proves is that if you wander off far enough the theoretical forest, you can use math to prove anything. I'm determined to find a number/ratio/theory that defines the phrase "great ergonomics!" (at least as far as knives go), but I haven't quite got there, yet.
This is the Boker Kressler, an integral sub-hilt fighting knife, and a wonder of construction.
But mostly it's here so I can talk about surface area.
The little second strip of nicely shaped metal is there to poke between your index and middle fingers, and it gives a very sure grip on the knife. Trench knives have the same thing, with one or more finger holes to increase the amount of surface area that your paw can hold on to. Trench knives also use 'em as brass knuckles, but that's a whole different thing to write about.
So while these knives are very secure in the hand, there is a problem: you can't re-position as you cut.
Your hand moves along the knife handle as you cut. I don't have video of it or anything, but it's pretty easy to pay attention to how the pressure changes against your fingers, the next time you have your knife out for some work. Go ahead: I'll wait.
Somewhere in the middle is a handle shape which allows the necessary confidence in your hold on the knife, and the space for subtle rotation while cutting.
Once again, I'm going to pick on the Hinderer XM. And, I've added some shitty, hand-drawn arrows, to make this memorable.
The shitty, hand-drawn arrow on the left points at what some people call the "choil", with the "ch" pronounced like a "k". As if you needed to know that.
What's even worse, is that the exact size and shape of this feature is still up for debate: when it's tiny, some people will call it a "sharpening notch", while some people always call it a "choil". In the case of Hinderer's knives, it allows you to choke up on the blade, placing your index finger on the choil, and now you have the same kind of secure grip and control that you would with a sub-hilt.
The other arrow points to, roughly, the place where your index finger rests if you grip the knife normally. Actually though, it's the tiny little "peak", right behind, that does the heavy lifting.
This part:
Aw yeah, artist AF.
That small peak in the handle, and the pair of inward curves that go into making it, are just increasing the surface area that you get to touch with your fingers. If you felt like doing calculus, you could verify by maths, that this handle shape is "longer", than one without the peaks and valleys in it.
So why not go all the way?
Benchmade did, and they're not the first:
But now, there's another problem: if your fingers aren't the exact right size to fit those contours, the knife isn't going to feel as comfortable to use. So there has to be some kind of compromise between maximum surface area, and minimum "pointy bits to make hot spots".
This one is going to get some editing. For now, I'll explain what I'm on about, and add pictures and further tl:dr if it seems necessary.
I've been concentrating on the index finger and thumb for the first two parts of this roughly scienticious series. Because, those two are what control the blade and move it about. But what about the rest of the hand?
The aspect ratio roughly approximates how easy it is to keep the blade centered and cutting straight. But individual fingers have roles to play.
Your middle and ring fingers have a dual role to play in knife use. When you push cut, they're aligned with your arm, and provide resist the force of the material. Put another way, they are the "hard place", your arm is the "rock", and the knife itself is caught in the middle, forcing it to cut something. Or break, if you're doing it really super wrong.
In finer cutting tasks, these two middle fingers of your hand are what rotate the knife around your index finger. It's a subtle thing, but that's what's going on.
Your pinky finger is pretty much along for the ride, although it may provide some tertiary information about the orientation of the knife handle. It's interesting that a knife handle has to be long enough to let your pinky hold on to it, or it feels like you don't have as much control.
The more I pay attention to the finer details of knife design, the more I find these details in one place or another, but very few knives have more than two of them. As I feel motivated, I'll edit or add to this, to show what I'm talking about.
Some knives work better for EDC than others. Beyond the obvious difficulty of opening a letter with your 8" Bowie knife, there isn't a whole lot of information out there about exactly why some knives just seem to "feel better" than others. All people say is "great ergonomics!", if they say anything at all.
I'm here to kill that magic for you. With one simple line.
I'll apologize now, if these pictures are shitty: I copied them into Paint, and drew a line on them. So they're probably different sizes, and all kinds of things that would send a proper photographer into convulsions.
So what? That's not the point. The point is that little black line across the knife.
This line is part of the "feels good" quality of any knife. It starts at the point, and just barely touches the part of the handle where your index finger should naturally rest. From there, it passes out of the back of the handle.
Let's look at another.
This is a wharncliffe-blade version of the Hinderer XM. RH's knives are one of the things that people generally agree have "great ergonomics!", which is what got me thinking about this question.
Back to this mystery line. If you look at the pommel of the knife, you'll see that it crosses the end of the handle up higher (toward the spine), than it did on the drop point.
One more example.
This triumph of form over function is brought to you by Benchmade. The line is red this time, like it should have been in the other pictures, but Paint is a stupid program to work with. Never mind.
Much of everyday cutting involves getting the point of the knife into the thing you want to cut. Many common materials have great shear- and tensile strength, making it hard to open bags and taped boxes. So the measure of a knife that functions well is how natural it feels to control the tip. For some reason, that "natural" feeling is determined by where that red line ends.
I don't know why. And you're free to disagree with me. In fact, I welcome it! Post below, and tell my why I'm wrong/crazy/possibly right. This is part of a continuing series of works in progress, and it wouldn't be complete without discussion.
Whatever thread has the newest post in it, is the one that sits at the top of the list, and the one that appears on the home page of the forum. I started a new thread, then posted in this one, to "bump" it to the top of the list.
And yes, Kilroy means that the flipper tab is newer than the thumb stud. I'm not certain, but I believe Rick Hinderer was the first to offer a "flipper tab" on his knives. It's hard to find history of this stuff, but the flipper is at least as old the "the mid '90s". So, 1995....?
Before that, knives could be "flipped", if you tightened the pivot screw just right. But there was a danger of the blade unfolding in your pocket if you did that.
Still thinking about what the aspect ratio means. Clearly, you can fudge these numbers around from any direction you want, making your handles wide and thin, or square, or even "over square", so that the handle is thicker than it is wide.
But it follows from the idea that every knife is a compromise, that the solutions at the far ends of the bell curve are not going to be the right ones.
My hypothesis is that there is some range of aspect ratios which result in a knife which is both easy to control and comfortable during heavy cutting. How to find the upper and lower boundaries of this range will wait until tomorrow.
With 12 hours to think about it, the slow drip that is my thought process has filled up the idea that it's the relationship between perimeter and aspect ratio that makes for a pleasant handle slab. Now, I realize that this is getting more and more complicated, since I'm trying to connect a concrete measurement (distance around the outside of something), and a derived number. But that's the best I can do. Hopefully by writing it out, I can find a way to strip away some of the complicated.
Ah! Perimeter is the "smallest size". Just for fun, I'm going to say that the Benchmade mini-Grip, at 2.562 inches around, is the smallest knife that still feels "right". Because if you look right below it at the Gerber, that knife feels vague and dainty in your hand. There is a relatively large difference in aspect ratios between the two, so I'm on the right track, but maybe not as close to my destination as I want to be.
Aspect ratio isn't exactly the "largest size", because there are people with smaller hands than me, and 7-foot monsters who can pick up a basketball with one hand. But, if you give them a knife with a handle AR of 1.5, then one with an AR of 0.84, they're probably going to say that the second one "feels better". I could always be wrong, but this is the Internet....
A knife with a handle AR of "1" is square: it's handle slabs are exactly as wide as the knife is thick, at least where you're measuring.
But more isn't always better. A square knife would be hard to work with, because you couldn't tell whether or not you've got the edge properly angled into the cut.
For the moment, I'm going to say that any knife with an AR (aspect ratio) of 0.46 to 0.75, inclusive, is going to "feel right"
Final Conclusion -finally!
For a knife to "feel good", it must have
Perimeter of 2.56 inches (distance around), at the point where you index finger naturally grips the handle
and
Aspect Ratio of 0.46 to 0.75, inclusive, to allow for good control while cutting. This width-to-thickness ratio is also measured at the point where you index finger grips the knife during regular cutting tasks.
Your opinion matters! Now that you've slogged your way through this wall of text, I'd like to hear what you think. I'm just one guy, relying on his small collection of knives, and I would appreciate some feedback from those who have different ones.
I will also be posting this on EDC Planet, once I get it edited into better shape, so you'll be able to go over there and shout at me, too.
Last Edit: Dec 17, 2017 7:31:38 GMT -8 by Shorttime
It's gonna get worse, before it gets better: as with any wilderness expedition, there is a need to clear a path through the middle, before coming out the other side. And it follows that any path you try to plot will have the nastiest bramble patch for fifty miles in any direction.
So, put on your chainsaw pants: it's gonna get thorny.
Some garlic chicken and a cup of coffee later, I've got some other numbers.
Since you're going to wrap your dirty meat hooks around the outside of a knife, knowing the distance around it might be useful.
Batum: 3.597"
M1: 3.531"
Razel: 3.439"
CQC-7: 3.159"
Code 4: 2.722"
That is to say, the perimeter or surface area which your hand has to contact with the knife.
These numbers say something different from the aspect ratio, and further puzzling about it suggests that both the perimeter AND aspect ratio are important.
Perimeter Aspect Ratio Batum: 3.597" 0.39
M1: 3.531" 0.75
Razel: 3.439" 0.90
CQC-7: 3.159" 0.48
Code 4:2.722" 0.33
If you wanted to, you could make a handle that was 2" wide, and 1/8" thick, and it would have quite a lot of perimeter, which would seem okay. But it's aspect ratio would be way off, telling you that it ain't the best thing to hold on to.
This is a work in progress. When all is said and done, I may do a lot of calculations, only to find that there is no useful way to compare knives, or to build a method that can describe one to another person over the Internet. So I may as well take a shot at it.
More, later.
Last Edit: Dec 16, 2017 13:08:57 GMT -8 by Shorttime
From left to right, the Cold Steel Code 4, Emerson CQC-7 Mini, CRKT/Lightfoot M1, CRKT Folding Razel, and the CRKT Batum.
Now. This is not meant to be a shoot-out, or a side-by-side comparison, like what the automotive magazines do, every three issues, or so.
Spoiler alert: the BMW wins.
Second picture, the edge-on view.
So what is this? Sit tight, we'll get there. First, some science.
Aspect ratio, is a number you get by applying maths to the height and width of an object. It started with television screens and tires, and it has since gotten applied to other things. In this case, I'm going to use it as an easy way to compare something which would otherwise be impossible.
WidthThick Code 41.022" 0.339"
CQC-7 1.064" 0.5155"
M11.008" 0.7575"
Razel0.9035"0.816"
Batum 1.295" 0.5035"
The first column of numbers is the width of the handle, as measured right about where my index finger is, in this picture
Yeah, it's auto-focus blurry. You get the idea.
The second column of numbers is the thickness of the knife, like they're sitting in the second photo. I tried to measure in right about the same place on the handle, and I included pocket clips.
So, knowing the wide and the thick of the knives, there is calculation to be done.
Last Edit: Dec 16, 2017 11:54:53 GMT -8 by Shorttime
There is very little meaningful work being done to compare folding knives. Cold Steel breaks other companies' knives in somewhat consistent fashion, but they do it mainly to show how much better the Triad Lock is.
A knife is so much more than just a locking mechanism, so I'm going to try to address one of the parts that isn't talked about, very much: the handle slabs.
There is a lot of noise about steel chemistry, too. But the strongest, bestest knife is going to stay in it's box, if it's uncomfortable to use.
So I'm going to take some knives from my collection, and do a couple of photos, take a couple of measurements, and start breaking down the qualities that make a knife "feel good".
I'm short on time just now, so there will be more to this throughout the weekend, as tedious IRL things allow. And, as always, this is the Internet, so your thoughts, feelings, jokes, and comments are welcome. However, I would ask that you strive for clever and creative trolling: this is a classy place, let's keep it that way.