I was just showing off the Spyderco Native Chief that I’m testing as part of a passaround facilitated by Rivers Edge Cutlery and a point came up that I wanted to address.
I realize that my articles often seem to shed an unrealistically positive light on the knives in question. I know that I rarely totally denounce a knife as a failure, and even often give counter arguments when I point out a negative characteristic of a knife.
There are a couple reasons for this tendency:
First, I generally know that I’ll like a knife before I buy it. What I mean by that is not that I’ve never been disappointed by the build quality of a knife or liked a feature less than I expected, but that I spend a lot of time (probably too much) researching and deliberating on what knives I want. This naturally weeds out most knives that would be likely to garner a truly negative review, because I know if there have been reports of quality issues and the like well before purchasing a knife.
Second, I am usually thoroughly excited to get a new knife and that can put a rosy tint on my perception of it. Being that I am a knife enthusiast through and through, getting almost any knife amounts to an overall good experience. Of course there are exceptions, but I generally find something to be happy with on a knife simply because I enjoy knives.
However, I try first and foremost not to allow my view of a knife and especially my published thoughts on a knife to be influenced by the manufacturer’s, dealer’s, owner’s, or general population’s expectations. I mean to give fully honest reviews based solely on my genuine feelings and experiences of the knife.
Authenticity is one of the core values of Knife Thoughts and I intend to ensure it remains a pillar of my writing and posting.
