A recent post here triggered me a bit. And I think I generally speaking, agree that there is diminishing returns after a certain amount of money spent on a knife.
From left to right:
Bestech Icarus, Grailer 2Ti, CRK Small Inkosi
These three knives cost me aprox 120, 285, and 550 euros each. The Icarus was on sale, normal price was around 220.
M390, CPM20CV, and magnacut.
They are all titanium framelock a with varying degrees of machining work done to make them. They all have excellent fit and finish and clean, sharp grinds.
I am a firm believer that the geographical location of the factory does not determine if they are good if bad at making knives. Far from it. I also try not to let governments and politics cloud my thoughts amregarding this. From a Europeans' eyes the majority of huge-ass-countries are acting very shitty at the moment.
I have a hard time justifying what I paid for the CRK when the Icarus feels just as nice (the Bestech has some more machining done to it). I really like the Inkosi, but they are too expensive and also why I don't recommend anyone but a collector to get one.
The middle knife is made by We Knife and the handles and milling done is excellent, I really like all of the 3D contouring and micro milling on it. I can see why it is more expensive than the Bestech, even at msrp. But I think it would be more apt to price it a bit lower too. I bought it because I'm a fan of the designer.
Both the grailer and Bestech are much better value than the CRK.
People are of course free to justify the cost of knives made locally to be higher if course. But it does not make them better value. I want to make that distinction, and I see many people mixing those two aspects together.
Justifying paying something vs the objective value.
That's my two cents and I'm stepping of my soap box.
by mecha_monk
