One thing I have been pondering is what to do with the various knives that I am turning out. I think I have a solution.
Back when I was doing wet plates and boxing them as display-pieces, I hit upon the idea of listing them on Ebay with a starting price of $1, to see where the market wound up valuing my work. That was an interesting experiment; I learned that the market’s valuation of an artwork bore no resemblance to mine, or to how much work it took to make the thing. For example, I might spend 3-4 hours making and staining and sanding a wooden box for a plate, and a bare plate that I thought was so-so would fetch twice as much. In the end, though, I wound up with a couple of loyal fans who collected most of my output between them. I stopped selling plates, mostly because of the annoyance factor of boxing them and shipping them and doing the commerce side. One boxed plate I did got parked on by a UPS truck (or something) and the box was completely destroyed, so I had to get the plate back, construct another box, etc. It was frustrating because I had someone else’s money in my hand, who wanted me to hurry up and re-do some difficult work I had already done to my satisfaction, once.
So, what to do about the knives?
I am fortunate that I’m sitting at the end of a long and fairly successful career in IT security; more money would always be nice but I don’t need to turn my hobby into cash. In fact, I’ve found that turning your hobby into cash is a great way to turn your hobby into work and eventually hating it. Programming computers used to be my hobby, so I’ve got ample experience with how the realities of the market can suck the fun out of a thing. I don’t want to turn knife-making into a job, and it’d be a horrible decision since I’d be starting at negative several tens of thousands of dollars in gear. I’m so far in the red that I’ll never break even – that can be liberating, sometimes, other times it’s a horrible weight tied to the ankle of your creativity.
What I think I will do, subject to change if I get a better idea, is auction knives off periodically, and pre-designate the beneficiary. That way, someone can get a knife and help some cause at the same time. Perhaps someone might think, “Marcus’ knifes are pretty much crap, but I am willing to pay way more than it’s worth because it’s going to the Mother Theresa Home for Starving Bloggers” or whatever.
Another problem that I am going to solve this way is: mistakes. When you spend hours staring at a piece of work, you come to know it pretty well; every little bit of it, every flaw. I know the little asymmetries and scratches, the spots where I wish I had shaped something better, or polished a bit longer. I don’t want someone to get their hands on a knife I made and say “I put this thing on my surface plate and your edge-line is off by thousandths!” because I already know that. Some of these things wind up with problems that just aren’t going to get fixed because I’ve moved on to something else and I’m done with it. What I’m going to do is post each knife with a critical review of its flaws – sort of a disclaimer and a warning at the same time. “What you get is what you get” with a term-sheet, if you will. That way, if someone doesn’t mind grinder-scratches on the bevel, they can go into it not expecting a perfect mirror polish.
That leaves the mechanics of running an auction for a beneficial cause. I could put these things on Ebay, but then I will either get lost in the great noise or I’ll have to re-activate my facebook and twitter pages and promote the auctions there. In which case there will be well-heeled internet security practitioners maybe bidding for the curiosity value of having a blade made by me. (Note: knives are only interesting in technical terms, the fact that my hands made something does not show anywhere in the work!) I figure I’ll post something and people can bid in the comments or anonymously be emailing me and when the auction is over, the winner can donate to the selected cause, or send me money and I’ll do it – then I’ll send the knife.
The first experimental listing will be in a couple weeks, and it’s going to be the thing pictured above – “Chef’s pwning knife” in 1095 and 15N20 high carbon steels, with ebony bolsters and resin-impregnated spalted maple octobox handle. It’s sort of a cook’s short sword – overall length is about 14″ and it’s thick across the back so it’s very stiff without any give or mercy to it at all. It cuts well and I haven’t really bothered to sharpen it yet. The edge of the blade shows a transition-line between the 1095 and 15N20, that’s not a temper-line – it’s 3 layers of steel welded together and hammered into shape. This knife will benefit the Freethoughtblogs defense fund, to help defray costs from Richard Carrier’s lawsuit.
Regarding cost: the materials that go into a knife like that are about $20 if you factor in the propane, sandpaper, glue, steel, etc. A lot of high end fancy damascus knives fetch $500-$2,000 with the typical price being in the $500 range. I don’t think that the damascus makes the blade better (in fact mis-forged damascus is dramatically worse) it’s just a way of making a unique piece. I do not expect that someone is going to throw down money like that for one of my knives (perhaps someday but not today!) so I expect it to go for something pretty reasonable. Especially since I’m not dead yet and there will always be more and they should always be improving.
Notes on product photography: Here I tried to illustrate some of the techniques for a good product shot. This is not a great example but it’s what I got. Blades are hard to photograph because you need some big highlights to show that they are shiny, but the highlights obscure the detail in the metal. Usually the way to resolve that is to under-expose slightly and “pull” the exposure up in photoshop with a curves adjustment layer, as I did here. I was also careful to angle the camera so it picked up reflections on the wood, showing that the wood is fairly polished but not glossy. The “big soft light” look is because the only light in the scene is a giant softbox directly overhead. A sense of depth and scale are provided by the leather background, which is neutral but gives the brain lots of detail to play with. You’ll notice there are no shadows in the shot; this is not a “fine art” still life photo in which I would be showing off my painterly ability to create depth using cinematics – the light is directly overhead and bouncing right back off the knife into the camera. I actually didn’t use the strobe; I just let the modeling lamp in the softbox provide all the light.
Wow, that sounds tactical!
Have you considered setting up a vending machine to sell your knives? A quick turn on Google tells me it’s not a new idea, so there must be a body of expertise you could rely on.
In my opinion – Wrong.
Hand-made knives are works of art just like any other. The person who made it might be just as relevant to the owner as the artwork itself.
I love the idea.
I don’t have an knife that big, I have a cheap Chinese cleaver that probably does all that knife would do, I’m rather fond of my cleaver, though I dont think anyone would call it beautiful it is very much fit for purpose.
Reginald Selkirk@#1:
Wow, that sounds tactical!
It’s not fully tactical. To be fully tactical, it has to be matte black. By the way, I have just such a knife in progress! It’s tactical as hell, once you use a sharpie to blacken all the silvery bits, I mean.
Charly@#2:
The person who made it might be just as relevant to the owner as the artwork itself.
Yes and no. I suppose if it was Stalin’s personal hand-made slaughtering knife, it’d be relevant that it was Stalin’s, but I’m hardly a historical character and, if I were, we’d probably designate it as a matter of historical interest.
There’s a deeper question of a reputation for quality, or whatever. If I had a tremendous reputation as a great knife-maker, then I suppose someone might be attracted to a knife because the reputation would simplify the question of choice. It’s like buying a Rolls Royce: by all accounts they are very good cars and people pay a premium for them because of that fact. I don’t think that applies to me, either, especially since I will be listing all the flaws in every knife.
Jazzlet@#3:
I don’t have an knife that big,
This thing is yuge. It’s sort of like what you’d expect an orcish warlord to use to carve apart spare ribs, while the donor was still alive.
[I remember your comments about mini paring knives and actually beat a small piece of bar-end into a pretty nifty little potato-slaughterer that looks tactical as all hell. I hope the handle comes out as I imagine it; if it does it’ll wind up here and it’ll be pretty nice.]
I think this is a terrific idea, and actually by handling it this way the charity cause (whatever it may happen to be) will end up with all the money, instead of having the fee that eBay or whoever charges taken out first. You could potentially run into issues with too many emails, or the shipping could start to get prohibitive, but if you have the time and don’t mind paying the shipping (or perhaps the person could send you the money, and you could then take out a little for shipping) then it sounds like a winner to me.
In one of my hobbies private auctions are very common, and the person running it makes up their own rules: how long it runs, the increments by which the bid must go up each time, how they will handle last-minute “sniping” attempts and so on. I think as long as everything it spelled out up front people enjoy these auctions very much.
As far as the value of something and who made it: there really is a value in who made something, to the new owner. It imbues that object with a story: “This knife was made by this guy who used to work at the White House!” and so on. People are story-telling creatures and being able to tell that story can make someone very happy.
Such thinking sounds irrational to me. If I wanted to donate money to some charity, I’d just donate it to them. Logically, it would make no sense to buy what I perceive as a crappy knife if all I wanted to do is donate my money to a charity.
You also mentioned Mother Teresa here. Don’t you know that she was a pretty bad person? What she did is a textbook example for how not to run a charity. In her hospitals, she denied her poor patients pain relief and actual evidence-based medical care, instead she just made the patients suffer unnecessarily. Simultaneously, she herself happily enjoyed the perks of being rich. Mother Teresa did an amazing PR campaign, but beyond that there’s nothing good about her. I know that Christians perceive her as sacred, but there’s no reason why an atheist ought to use her name as a generic stand in for a charity.
Ieva Skrebele@#8:
You also mentioned Mother Teresa here. Don’t you know that she was a pretty bad person?
Yes, I know. I was being silly and trying to imply that the Mother Theresa Home For Starving Bloggers is a miserable place where bloggers go to die. Come to think of it, they could use a Pwning Knife of Mercy.
kestrel@#7:
It imbues that object with a story: “This knife was made by this guy who used to work at the White House!” and so on
I’m going to include a story for free, then!
(“Thomas Jefferson used this knife to slaughter his qualms!”)
I see, so it’s me failing to get things as usual. Once again I failed to notice and correctly interpret a joke.
Speaking of places where poor people go to die, I don’t get American attitude towards charities. Personally, I believe that countries should make sure that all people, regardless of how little they earn, have access to necessities like food or healthcare. States should be taking care of the needs of the poor people, not charities. It’s really a matter of efficiency and fairness. A charity will give food to a starving child who looks adorable in photos and promotional materials, but they won’t give food to some older and disfigured poor person who looks ugly and inspires no sympathy in people who donate money. States don’t have this problem—they just collect taxes and give money/food/medical care to every poor person, regardless of how cute or ugly this person looks in photos. Charities are also inherently more inefficient than states when it comes to helping the poor—in order to get donations, charities must do marketing stuff (and I hate marketing); charities also cannot make sure that every single poor person in the country gets the help they need.
My opinion is that I want a welfare state and I’m also fine with the high taxes that are necessary in order to support it. In a properly run state charities should be unnecessary and superfluous, because state should be making sure that the needs of every poor person are taken care of. Americans seem to disagree with me—they give to charities a lot more money than Latvians do, yet they don’t want to pay taxes. In my opinion, that doesn’t make sense—why should somebody oppose taxes yet willingly give money to some charity? Nor do I get billionaires who donate to charities. If some business owner cared about other people, they could pay their workers more, thus failing to become a billionaire in the first place.
Ieva Skrebele@#11:
Nor do I get billionaires who donate to charities. If some business owner cared about other people, they could pay their workers more, thus failing to become a billionaire in the first place.
Ah, I think I can answer that one for you: it’s all about class. Let me give you an example, in the form of Andrew Carnegie. He was dirt poor immigrant, who came to America, figured out a great way to screw labor in the industrial revolution that was just happening, mercilessly put the screws to his workers for decades until he was one of the richest men on earth, and then became a “philanthropist” and started spending huge amounts (about 3% of his net worth) on: stuff for middle class people. As you say, rather than dramatically changing his workers’ lives by paying them better, he bought libraries, museums, and concert halls for the social class that he now identified with – “his people” were the wealthy not the poor. That’s why we see people like Elon Musk who are concerned with making commuting a better experience for his new social class (actually, those far below it, but that’s who he wants to worship him) – guys like Bezos and Musk have private helicopters and don’t sweat that stuff – but they want the people that they see as their target audience to think they are awesome.
Edit: Some, like Henry Ford and TJ Watson went pretty far down the path of wanting the workers to worship them, too.
charities must do marketing stuff (and I hate marketing)
If you knew how that’s usually done, you’d throw up. Hm, I should write about that. Spoiler: if someone calls you for a donation, do not ever give. Go to the organization’s website and give directly, if you must.
The bolsters are black. That means you can market this knife as “tactical”. That should double its value at least.
Callinectes@#13:
The bolsters are black. That means you can market this knife as “tactical”. That should double its value at least.
Yeah, but they’re ebony. I would have used cheap plastic if I was going “tactical”
I am eventually going to do a black blade. I’ve already got manganese dioxide and phosphoric acid laid in! (what, don’t you have that kind of stuff in your kitchen?)
I can certainly understand people desiring admiration from others and wishing to be worshipped. Wanting to pretend to be a kind and generous person when in reality you are a greedy psychopath, yes, that’s something I can understand. What bothers me here is something else—in the case of billionaires like Carnegie it’s such a paper-thin disguise that nobody ought to fall for it. Nor should the billionaire expect anybody to be fooled by his pathetic acting. A billionaire spends decades abusing his employees, dodging taxes, and acting like a complete jerk. Then he puts up a big show and donates less than 1% of his fortune. Does he really expect people to be fooled by this? Does he really expects to be admired for his generosity?
If I was receiving money from some charity funded by a rich asshole, I’d keep my mouth shut and not comment on how I despise this rich person whose money I’m pocketing. After all, I’d want the money. But I wouldn’t expect the rich person to be fooled by my act. I’d expect the rich person to understand that whatever gratitude or admiration I’m forced to loudly proclaim in exchange for the cash is all fake and I don’t truly mean what I say. I’d expect the rich person to realize that in reality I despise him.
Not only it’s all fake, the disguise is so thin that nobody should be fooled by it.
I have read online about some ugly stories. Ugly enough to want to throw up. Have you personally experienced any of this?
Most kitchens do have phosphoric acid, as an ingredient in prepared foods. If you drink cola, check the ingredient list on the can or bottle.
In my local supermarket recently, I noticed “guar gum”. I know this is a very common ingredient in foods, but I had never seen it for sale as an isolated product.
Reginald Selkirk – it’s used in making candy.
Presumably the phosphoric acid is why coke makes a good metal polish. Mine is a lot more concentrated and I won’t be drinking it.
@Ieva Skrebele, #11, re: American attitudes towards charity. Even though, as you say, governments should be taking care of their people, they are not doing it. At least, the USA is not doing it. Unfortunately it is needed even though it should not be… because I agree with you, that state should be taking care of this. Most of us feel that’s why we pay taxes, to help the state as a whole to run better for the people in it, and to benefit and help them. Since the state manifestly does not do this in the USA, a lot of us feel we might be able to help out others more directly, since the state won’t do it… so if we happen to have $5.00 that is not necessary for food and rent and bills, we’ll kick it into some cause we happen to believe in, since no one else who can and should be doing it, is doing it.
Ieva
Andrew Carnegie built the library in my small city in Canada. The building has a nicely sized rotunda complete with dome, all oak shelving, and arched big windows. It’s really quite beautiful and I love spending time there. The rotunda serves as the lobby and checkout area and in it is a great big brass plaque that says what a great man Mr. Carnegie was. That he built libraries all across Canada and the U.S. That he helped build hospitals. That he was a philanthropist who wanted to improve communities and for a very long time I believed it was true.
Why should I question that? The beautiful library is here, Andrew Carnegie paid for it and it has improved my life. We didn’t study American history in school and it was only as an adult that I learned the rest of the story.
Things like libraries and hospitals and concert halls are tangible. People can go there and do things and have their lives improved. The whole awful story of the man gets lost to time, but the places he built persist. My lovely library and its plaque are all many people will ever know about Andrew Carnegie. I’d say that’s a pretty good way to polish your legacy.
***
Knives, now.
I think an auction for charity is a great idea and I’ll definitely be bidding for the right piece of Marcus Metal. I like your choice of charity this time around, but that knife might be too big for me. It has such a nice gentle curve, though. Hmm….
***
Also, thanks for the lighting tips. I like the way you’ve positioned the tip of the blade to fade out of the light. Somehow, I think it’s adds an element of drama and a touch of danger.
Different countries have different laws for charity marketing, I don’t think the UK’s are great, but they were cleared up some a while back, so if you buy eg some charity Christmas cards it should be clear to you how much of the purchase price goes to the named charity. The same clear up also included a requirement for charities to publish what percentage of their income they spend on administration and overheads as opposed to eg looking after donkeys (the Donkey Sanctuary is one of the UK’s wealthiest charities).
One justification that you see for charity is that the donor gets to decide what to spend their money on, and given eg the huge percent of USA taxes that go on the military I can see why people might prefer to give to charity rahter than to pay more taxes. We have that problem in the UK too, though not to quite as great an extent, personally my biggest problem with UK taxes is that they are used to subsidise businesses under the table, after all if businesses were paying adequate wages there would be no need for in work benefits.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen figures for any other country, but in the UK there is a clear inverse relationship between the percent of a person’s disposable income that they give to charity and how well off they are, those with the least are proportionally far, far more generous than those with more.