Hi, Ed-glad you found this and added your perspective on things.

I was told previously that getting to hammer-ins and classes were well worth the time and money spent to attend. Without question, I can say my time with Ed was fantastic. With all of Ed's help, I got to forge 3 blades, finish one completely out with guard and handle, and a second through heat treat and finish sanding. In one week, I learned so much more than I could have on my own in 6 months or a year. I imagine the ABS school leaves the same feeling for those who are able to attend.

I don't have a problem with showing some commitment over time and understand how it ended up as part of the rules. I'm thankful for many in the ABS-several members have been more than generous to me with their time and advice. When I know enough to pass on to others, I plan to do it <img src=' http://www.americanbladesmith.com/ipboard/public/style_emoticons//smile.gi f' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />.

Jeremy

I see both sides of this argument. I also didn't join the ABS immediately when I started making knives, even though I had friends in the organization, and was forging from the start. I wasn't sure it was for me, and I'm not much of a joiner (defer to skepticism typically).

It wasn't until I took the Handles & Guards class year before last with Jim Rodebaugh (which I consider to be the best money I ever spent in knife making FWIW), that he convinced me to join, and I've been committed ever sense.

Being in the area, about 20 mins away from Haywood, and close friends with Bill Wiggins, I've seen first hand the results of a few of the two week Intro classes already, and it's amazing. There's no question that it crams years of knowledge into those two weeks, and it's apparent from the knives being produced by the end of the class. Sure, it won't turn people that will never be knifemakers into knifemakers (that's more than just skill, we all know that, it takes a special kind), but even those people will be producing better work than most people will a year or more into learning on their own, and avoiding mistakes that many *very* experienced makers that have done it their way from day one, still make.

It's clearly (to me) an objective litmus to guaranteeing a basic level (i.e. removing a year of requirement) of competency. Still, for an experienced maker of a certain level, the class isn't likely to add near the "advancement", however, from what I've seen, if an experienced maker is in one of these classes, the individual component of the class easily focuses on what factors need to be addressed by that maker to get his knives up to par for the JS testing. So therefore may still be valuable.

These days, I tell everyone I know that's interested in making forged blades, to go ahead and join the ABS if they think they'll ever want to test for JS or MS eventually. When my cousin started making knives, I signed him up. I had my reasons for not doing so initially, but I wish I had resolved those sooner. Since I'm currently in the boat of waiting to test also.

I think I'm ready, honestly from what I've seen of your work Jason, I'm sure you probably are also. However, from the organizational standpoint, there has to be some impartial baseline, that weeds out the people that wouldn't be, and wouldn't be objective enough to admit that to themselves. Yes perhaps there are different ways that it could be handled, but most of those would require expansive amounts more manpower, (i.e. submitting a single evaluation piece, or MS sign-off, etc) and may still not be objective enough to weed out the riff-raff. It doesn't do the organization any good to accept all comers for JS testing, and then having to disenfranchise those people that clearly weren't ready, but delusional enough to not realize it. It takes time and resources away that could be better spent, and would likely cause a lot of anger among those that failed.

I also see Ed's "instant gratification" argument, and I appreciate it. The investment in time and patience, makes the whole process more meaningful to me, and it gives you time to get involved with the ABS, meet your peers, and make friends, that can and will give you objective feedback. Not all of us are able to articulate certain things about the expectations we have in regards to certain details, but most of those exist for a reason, and many outside the ABS, just don't get it. We're not just a certification board for skill level. That's a service that's provided, and an important one to be filled properly, but first and foremost, we're a benevolent organization dedicated to an idealistic pursuit. Preserving the Art of the Forged Blade, first and foremost.

Anyway, the waiting period may seem arbitrary, and it might not be ideal, but in the end, it makes sense. Exceptions could be made, but that's a fine line, which is often difficult to clearly define.

Master Smith Ed Caffrey is right on target with his comments. I would add that attending a judging standards class at one of the ABS hammer-ins is highly beneficial to those seeking a JS or MS stamp. (ABS hammer-ins: Spring and fall Smoky Mountain in Clyde, North Carolina; Spring and fall Piney Woods in Washington, Arkansas; Northeast in Auburn, Maine; Mid-America in Troy, Ohio; Heartland in Topeka, Kansas; California in Visalia, California. Although it is not an ABS sponsored event, the ABS judging standards class is also frequently offered at the Batson Bladesmithing Symposium sponsored by the Alabama Forge Council in Tannehill State Park, Alabama.)

nevermind

Travis,

Welcome to the forum. Sincerely. We are glad you and Jason are here. I read your post before you edited it away and you make some good points. You and your brother are certainly skilled and probably would have little trouble passing the JS test. I said probably. You wont know till you present your knives in front of the judges. ( I would say you can pass from what I have seen ) The question you were asking, implies that there should be exceptions to the rule. The rule of 3 years that is. While it's good to have confidence and exuberance of youth AND while your work is probably worthy of a JS stamp, there is more to think of than that when it comes to changing rules for some and making others hold to the rules. And really that is where the line would get very blurry and hard to interpret. It's quite possibly a can of worms that the ABS board is not going to open. I believe Javan touched on some of the pitfalls of that.

I would bet that the board is reading this and I wish you had left your post up for all to see.

The ABS has been viewed by some a bunch of old guys that are stuck in the past. Well, if you want things to change, you have to stir the pot but give it time to simmer. You might have your stamp by the time it changes but it might help the next guys down the line if indeed it changes.

I'd like to point out something that I really believe about the ABS. The rules are not perfect but the intent is honorable and it is better to be patient and work with the rules that have been followed for years than to just throw in the towel and wash your hands of the ABS. You might take the attitude that you don't need the ABS to make a good knife. I've heard that plenty. Not saying you are. But either way, you do need the respect of the makers that are just as good as you and willing to wait the allotted time. Some things do come with age. I know and patience is one. I also have come to appreciate the way the rules read and think they are for the OVERALL best for the organization and it's members. I got started later in life than you and I never gave it a thought to think the rules should be changed. Just sayin...

If you think I don't want you two fine makers on my team, you are dead wrong. But I don't want you to shoot yourself in the foot because you don't see things the way a bunch old guys do. Your question is a good one, but that alone may not warrant the specific change you might want.

I say this with due respect and not with any condescension. Jason has my phone number. I'd welcome a call tomorrow.

Lin

I think that you gave some excellent advice.

I agree Dan. Lin is a pretty smart fellow. Good advice. I do not think I can add anything.

Brion

Thanks for the thoughtful reply Lin. I had actually planned to leave that post up but accidentally double posted. When I got home I deleted the double post before I realized that Dan had already fixed it. I've stirred the pot enough in my lifetime and gotten burned for it that I figured I wouldn't bother to recompose everything, but am obviously willing enough to stir that I wrote it in the first place. I sometimes get myself in trouble because I really only care about excellence and don't really care much about tradition or about people's vested interests in the status quo. I am an unapologetic pragmatist. I realize that not everyone is this way. If Dan can somehow revive it, I'm fine with leaving my original post up. I hear no condescension from you, and I intend none either. I hope anything I write is interpreted with the same graciousness.

I appreciate your kind reply, and I think we are mostly understanding each other. I want to clarify, however, that I don't think the 3 year rule should have exceptions. I think it doesn't make sense and shouldn't be applied to anyone at all. I'm happy to be convinced that there are good reasons for it's existence, but I've not yet seen them in any of the above posts. As it stands, it is condescending and a bit insulting to makers with experience, and favors those without it. More to the point, I think it is ultimately counterproductive to the aims of the ABS. While I would benefit from a rule change, nothing I'm writing here is really about me--I knew the rules when I joined and expect to wait the required time.

I also want to clarify that I make no claim that I could pass right now. I PROBABLY could, it's true, but that's the value of the testing. I will never KNOW until I go through it, and I fully intend to go through it to prove something to myself. Truly, the point I'm trying to make is that it's the TEST that matters. How does the 3 years really matter to the results one way or the other? With respect to this, something I said in the deleted post deserves restating: an organization has to be ruthless enough to start or quit doing anything necessary to meet its goals if it is to be successful and survive. If there are sacred cows that can't be questioned, how can an organization ever grow? Is the ABS strong enough to evaluate EVERYTHING it does and subject EVERY action it makes as a group to the fire of utility? I hope so. Honorable intent may keep things from being evil, but it can't save them from being pointless.

I knew about the 3 year thing before I signed up, and I signed up anyway because I think the ABS has a lot going for it. I am not an impatient person, even though I realize that it may appear so from this, my 3rd post as an ABS member, that ultimately is seeking to make certification faster (but NOT easier). Still, how can I push myself to be a better bladesmith and not with the same impulse push my organization to be better also? I don't need the ABS to be a better maker, any more than it needs me. I hope however, that I can continue to learn here, and that maybe I can bring something valuable to the table. Nothing changes unless it is talked about, and nobody thinks everything is perfect here. I know from experience that I'm much better at pointing out problems than with coming up with solutions; all I hope to do is start a serious conversation among folks who can actually do something.

The question you were asking, implies that there should be exceptions to the rule. The rule of 3 years that is. While it's good to have confidence and exuberance of youth AND while your work is probably worthy of a JS stamp, there is more to think of than that when it comes to changing rules for some and making others hold to the rules.

Not so much exceptions, as that becomes a slippery slope quickly. I'm not asking for a personal exception. The real question is "are the rules reasonable?"

There has been some discussion recently about knife organizations needing to move toward something different. Step two (step one being to acknowledge the need for change) is to examine things with a critical eye. By definition and human nature, we are blind to our own faults. The critical eye often comes from diversity and "outsiders." Travis and I are taking that role in this thread, but have both agreed to join the ABS and go through the process as currently defined.

My argument in this thread has been that the rules as defined (which I signed up to follow) don't accurately address the purpose they were intended to serve. By pointing out two exceptions, a maker who made the highest credential with only a few blades, and a maker whose only hangup is that he didn't pay the organization's dues long enough, I have argued that the rule itself needs to be examined. I'm not asking for a personal exception, just an examination of the standards. I suspect this thread alone has drawn enough attention to the standard to result in a meaningful examination, whether the standard is ultimately changed or not.

Travis makes a good point for both of us... the testing itself is the test. We haven't tested, so we're not claiming we could pass. That's not the point. The point is to streamline the entry without lowering the meaningful standards. Our argument is that the 3 years is not a meaningful standard, or at least that it does not accurately represent the standard that it is intended to capture, that of dedication and development of skill.

We come to the ABS as just "names on a screen" to many of you. I have a master's in Biblical studies and a master's in psychology. Travis has a master's in theology and a masters in accounting. We're smart folks, have education (not just opinions) about organizational growth, and are pretty good knifemakers to boot.

Looks like the Fry boys posted at the same time. I'm a CPA so believe me, I understand the point of standards for designations for entry into elite professional groups, and am not arguing against that AT ALL. This is pretty much all I'm trying to say:

|quoted:

The rules as defined (which we signed up to follow) don't accurately address the purpose they were intended to serve. By pointing out two exceptions, a maker who made the highest credential with only a few blades, and a maker whose only hangup is that he didn't pay the organization's dues long enough, we have argued that the rule itself needs to be examined. We're not asking for personal exceptions, just an examination of the standards.

Please don't misunderstand me. I don't think that the 3 year wait is a bad thing at all. I am happy to have this time to get My skill set in line with what the judges expect.

I did not realize that the intro course was two weeks long, but my point still remains. Giving preferential treatment to some because they have taken a course gives an appearance that may not be in line with the goals or reasoning of the group. I understand that the ABS isn't out to make money off the courses, but it is a significant investment financially to take the course and that helps to push that appearance.

This is an argument I have heard from other Makers out side of the ABS many times.

MP

|quoted:

As it stands, it is condescending and a bit insulting to makers with experience, and favors those without it. More to the point, I think it is ultimately counterproductive to the aims of the ABS.

|quoted:

Truly, the point I'm trying to make is that it's the TEST that matters. How does the 3 years really matter to the results one way or the other? With respect to this, something I said in the deleted post deserves restating: an organization has to be ruthless enough to start or quit doing anything necessary to meet its goals if it is to be successful and survive.

No offense Travis, but you seem to be coming entirely from the viewpoint that the "goal" of the ABS is accreditation. i.e. to create JS and MS holders.

I disagree with that sentiment, and I question, what you really think that would do to benefit the organization? If the only investment a member had in gaining "status" that benefited them more than the organization (and lets be clear, it does, JS and MS don't pay higher dues, aren't mandated to contribute on any particular level otherwise), is join, pay one years dues, show up and test. Without anything else invested, what good does that do the cause of the ABS, which, once again, isn't simply to pass out JS and MS stamps.

This'll probably come out sounding wrong, and I'm trying to be respectful, but both of you guys sound a bit entitled. Truly no offense intended, that's just how it reads.

I agree that the three year limit is pretty arbitrary, and would like to see a better solution that considers individual skill. Ultimately though, your argument is polarizing me from something I already agree with. The accreditation aspect of the ABS is a service, not the purpose of the organization. It's a contribution to our membership, and I think that's important to keep in mind. We've got a handful (not very many) JS and MS that have very little to do with the organization already, that even put in the time, that aren't doing anything but banking off that accreditation. Without some investment from the membership, I can only see that getting worse. So I personally don't know what the solution is.

I know your intent isn't to sound entitled, but please remember, the organization doesn't *owe* you a shot at that qualification, just because you think you're (and probably are) a good knifemaker. Yes, I still agree that the time limit is arbitrary and not an ideal solution, but I do believe that everyone's relationship with the ABS needs to be first and foremost about belief in the idealistic pursuit laid out in the mission statement. Not just "how can the ABS help me".

If you agree, what solution can you offer that keep the ABS from just being a tool for maker's hoping to expand their sales? How do we ensure a reciprocal relationship? Because believe me, it costs the ABS to give you a stamp, more than the dues you pay for the first year you're a member certainly.

I've read through this thread with some interest, and I'll start by adding that I started making knives two years before I became an ABS member in 1989, and was talked into joining by none other that Bill Moran. He actually talked me through many lessons by phone which alone showed me just how much I didn't know. I do believe in the three yr waiting period because, there needs to be some kind of standard in place,. Every rule ever put in place, will confront some sort of proposal for exception at some time. It generally draws variables that cannot be made fair for everyone. This is unfortunate for the few,and their acceptance and understanding is valued. A three year waiting period still does not guarantee anyone, regardless of their years at the craft, that they will earn the rating.

I cant tell you how pleased I am with this discussion. The subject aside, it proves to me that the forums can be a place to discuss a subject that might get completely out of hand in another venue. I'm really glad to see that. That speaks to the caliber of people in this discussion.

I'd like to try to focus on something for a minute. To help me with that, here is a quote from Javan:

"I agree that the three year limit is pretty arbitrary, and would like to see a better solution that considers individual skill."

I would point out that rules ARE arbitrary by nature. They are like the lines on the road. While you might be a skilled driver, the rules still apply,(speed limits Minimum/maximum), no passing lanes, ect.) not to hold you back, but to seek a safe average for the betterment of all.

The principles behind the ABS' rules may not be clear to some but the rules help provide structure, a baseline. That is all an education based organization is able to provide and enforce. Everything else to promote knife making as a business or achieving personal goals is done by the maker, including his or her decision to get started or about when to get started down this road of testing.

The accreditation aspect of the ABS is a service, not the purpose of the organization. Without some investment from the membership, I can only see that getting worse.

I do believe that everyone's relationship with the ABS needs to be first and foremost about belief in the idealistic pursuit laid out in the mission statement. Not just "how can the ABS help me".

If you agree, what solution can you offer that keep the ABS from just being a tool for maker's hoping to expand their sales? How do we ensure a reciprocal relationship? Because believe me, it costs the ABS to give you a stamp, more than the dues you pay for the first year you're a member certainly.

My understanding, although simple, is that the ABS is about the preservation and promotion of the art of the forged blade. Culturally, you can't find education without testing. The ABS is giving out stamps that say, to some extent, "This guy understands the art of the forged blade." The stamps contribute directly to the mission of the organization.

Reciprocity is an individual issue. A large majority of the ABS members I have interacted with have been courteous and helpful. Right now, being a rookie at forging, my answer to "how can I help" is to participate in conversations like this. Later on (likely three years from now, wink) I'll have the endorsement that "this guy understands" and the kind of help I can provide will be different. Whether or not an individual chooses to help has to do with that person's personality and also by the spirit in which they are received by the organization. If "don't help like that" is the answer the first few times, people will give up on helping.

The subject aside, it proves to me that the forums can be a place to discuss a subject that might get completely out of hand in another venue. I'm really glad to see that. That speaks to the caliber of people in this discussion.

Well said Lin. A serious discussion without name calling, etc, is really important to us young'uns.