Some very good discussion in this thread. Lin's replies are spot on. He's pretty smart, for a country boy! <img src=' http://www.americanbladesmith.com/ipboard/public/style_emoticons//laugh.gi f' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />

It is not uncommon to have knifemakers join the ABS who could immediately pass the JS, or even the MS test. Perhaps it doesn't seem fair to them that they cannot take the test and get a stamp. However, rules are not always about being fair. They are about creating a level playing field.

The real risk of modifying the testing rules, is changing the value of the stamp for the knife collectors. A bladesmith possessing a stamp, has meaning and value to the collectors. If they perceive that the rules have been softened, or that the rules are flexible and subject to change, the value of the stamp will be diminished in their eyes. You desire a stamp, because it means something to your customers. As a businessman, it is in your best interest for your customers to perceive that you made a commitment and paid your dues to earn the stamp. Modifying the rules could result in the stamp having less value to your customers and so making it less worth your possessing it.

Javan and Lin bring up some good points, and point to the need for some clarification and reiteration of several important parts of this discussion. To make sure we’re all talking about the same thing, I’ve copied this bit from the ABS main site:

"The American Bladesmith Society was formed primarily to encourage and promote activities involving the art and science of forging metal, particularly tools, weapons, and art forms. The objectives of the educational programs of the American Bladesmith Society are to inform and educate knife makers and the public about the art, science, technology, history, and culture relating to forged edged tools, weapons, and artifacts, and the proper care and use of these objects."

This is the stated purpose of the ABS, and, having read the whole site several times prior to joining, it is the reason I decided to join. I think we have to assume that the actions of the Society are all geared toward meeting these objectives and purpose.

By my observation (and I have no doubt that I’ll leave something out) the things the ABS does, presumably to meet the stated purpose of education, are as follows:

• The various ABS Schools

• This Forum

• Sponsored events like hammer-ins

• The Expo

• JS and MS accreditation

It is easy to see how the first three in this list are geared toward meeting the stated purpose. Even the Expo, though it seems more generally geared to the economic promotion of its members (only ABS members can show and sell, but all of them ARE trying to sell) has some very good lectures as part of the event, and provides opportunities for newer makers and the public to interact with knowledgeable people. Having attended in 2013, I can testify to its effectiveness toward meeting the stated purpose.

The JS and MS accreditations are a bit more tricky, but in my mind it works like this. All of the previously mentioned and discussed activities are led by people who have reached the JS or MS accreditation level. I think it is safe to say that none of these events or activities could really exist without the participation of members of this relatively elite knifemaking crowd. Also, I know from experience that many other events that are not recognized formally as ABS sponsored are also led by people who have achieved this accreditation level. Participation by these folks lends credibility, prestige, and hopefully knowledgeable contribution to any event they attend. In this way, the accreditations themselves clearly further the purpose of the Society.

Perhaps more importantly, the testing process causes, by its very nature, a continual raising of the bar of excellence with respect to the forged, handmade blade. In my mind, this is the most valuable part of the accreditation program, and it’s one of the reasons I am choosing to seek such accreditation for myself. There is no better way to become better than to work to be the best, be judged and critiqued by the best, and to learn from the best.

To bring it back to the discussion at hand, though the ABS owes no one a shot at qualification, it benefits by allowing to everyone who can meet the standards to do so. Javan rightly points out that accreditation is not a service, per se, but I have argued that it is an integral part of the means by which the ABS achieves its purposes. Most of these standards are directly related to the furtherance of these purposes. Specifically, the performance testing and judging of five completed pieces raises the bar and ensures a standard of competence.

The point of this whole thread is to get people to think about (and hopefully answer) this question: How does a three year wait requirement before testing can be undertaken in any way advance the goals of the Society?

To restate what both my brother and I have said multiple times in this thread, we both signed up with knowledge of this rule, and chose to join anyway and abide by it. Part of our contribution to furthering the purposes of the Society is to ask difficult questions about things that harm it. This rule is harmful precisely to the extent that it discourages potential contributors to the purposes of the Society from joining or participating. Let me assure you that it does do this. I’ve been in enough conversations with other makers who refused to join because they thought this rule arbitrary, pointless, and alienating, to be confident that they makeup a sizeable portion of the knifemaking community.

Rules that are arbitrary by nature rarely endure, or are largely ignored in society. Speed limits make sense, and keep people safe. Prohibitions against cocaine use keep people safe and make sense. Did you know that it is illegal in Arkansas for a teacher who bobs her hair to get a raise? This rule doesn’t make sense, so it isn’t enforced. It was once illegal for non-white people to vote, but this rule was recognized as destructive and overthrown.

Nobody is suggesting that the standards be lowered. In fact, if they were more rigorous I would welcome the challenge! Making them less cumbersome does not reduce their rigor. What we are trying to do is help in the ways that are available to us to make the Society better.

A bladesmith possessing a stamp, has meaning and value to the collectors. If they perceive that the rules have been softened, or that the rules are flexible and subject to change, the value of the stamp will be diminished in their eyes. You desire a stamp, because it means something to your customers. As a businessman, it is in your best interest for your customers to perceive that you made a commitment and paid your dues to earn the stamp.

This actually goes to my point... to me the stamp is less about "paying your dues" and more about passing the test. I don't respect a knifemaker (as a knifemaker... he may be a fine gentleman and worthy of respect) because of his age or his tenure. I respect a knife maker because he makes excellent knives. Part of this is my generation's culture, but I think folks spend their hard earned money for a good product, not just a committed maker.

Travis' point about rules is a decent one... a rule that makes sense at a given time may not make sense later.

One thing that hasn't come up is the role of the internet in changing the way information is exchanged. When the ABS was founded, it would have taken several years of phone calls and some travelling to get to a JS level from a knowledge standpoint. You guys have done an excellent job through your youtube feed, for example, of sharing information that used to be much more difficult to come by. There has been some lament about how "the internet" has changed the knife world, and how the organizations have an opportunity to improve.

As the ways to obtain information have changed, perhaps it's time for the rules to change. The testing standards are where the strength of the organization lies. Discussing the time limit doesn't change the skill required to forge blades or finish knives up to standard. To me, the proof is in the pudding, not in how long it took to make it.

What we are trying to do is help in the ways that are available to us to make the Society better.

Agreed. I can't likely teach you guys much of anything about knifemaking at this point. What I can do is provide an outside perspective on the organization, from an educated standpoint.

|quoted:

... 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...

... 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"...

I have made several observations over the years that I have tried to vocalize but have never been sure if I was just talking to myself, or of others shared those observations. Thank you Javan, your words could have been taken directly from my thoughts, and I am so happy to see them articulated so clearly by another. Over the years I have personally known folks with two separate approaches to joining this non-profit educational organization, those who ask what can I contribute to this good cause, and those who ask how can the ABS help sell my work. I have observed some of those folks become an invaluable and integral part of the group while others participate no more than sending their dues after obtaining the rating they happily use in all of their literature.

One of the most interesting observations I have made involves the reaction of the two approaches to not passing the Judging in Atlanta or San Antonio. Both schools of thought are upset, but one is intent on hearing how they can improve and with a smile tell us they look forward to returning next year, the other often angrily stomp away from the group that didn’t give them the stamp they needed to promote their knives. If both had passed or both had failed the outcome would be the same, one would still get the full benefits and rewards of being a part of the advancement of the craft of bladesmithing while the other would simply go on in pursuit of advancing their sales.

Please know that these are my direct observations made of those who have tested in the past, so it is not in reference to any participants in this thread at all, it is to say that my first-hand experience totally bears out the concepts that Javan has described.

|quoted:

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".

I also agree with this completely, which is why I joined. In fact, in 5 years of knife making and observing other various organizations, fora, websites, clubs, etc. that all have similar goals, the ABS is the only one I've chosen to join and give my funds to. I did this because, more than any other such group, the ABS does a very creditable job doing what it says it will do. I think this is in large part due to the widespread acknowledgement that the tradition and recognition of excellence that makes up the accreditation process actually means something concrete, and that is something I want to be a part of.

I think folks spend their hard earned money for a good product, not just a committed maker.

People are absolutely willing to spend their money on a quality product. A maker's work stands for itself, whether they have a stamp, or not. But, you are dead wrong about collectors not caring about a maker's commitment. They are not interested in investing their money in a knife made by someone who they do not trust is committed to knifemaking. They are making an investment in the knife and also that maker. If the maker drops out of sight, the value of the knife falls and they lose money. They must trust that you are committed to staying in knifemaking.

As the ways to obtain information have changed, perhaps it's time for the rules to change.

You are quite correct, that today's schools and access to internet information have shortened the timeline for many to learn knifemaking skills. But no amount of skill, changes the human perception that a length of time is required to develop trust and prove commitment.

All of the previously mentioned and discussed activities are led by people who have reached the JS or MS accreditation level.

A JS or MS stamp is not required for anyone to participate in contributions to the organization. As the coordinator of the Heartland Symposium, I have no hesitation to schedule a demonstration by anyone. I don’t care if they have a stamp, or even whether they are a member of the ABS. Anyone with a useful skill to teach knifemakers is welcome at the Heartland, as they are at all ABS hammer-ins. Same for this forum. Anyone can contribute valuable information. So, the organization does not benefit by passing out stamps just to have more people involved. And having given a stamp to a knifemaker, does not ensure that they will make future contributions in any way.

What matters, is that the collectors value what the stamp stands for and that they will continue to trust that the value of the stamp will not be diminished by a lowering of the requirements. The ABS owes it to all of the other knifemakers who have earned a stamp, to protect the value of it. You know that the stamp adds value to your knives and to your own credibility as a knifemaker. That's why you want it. You're earlier comments show that you understand the value of possessing a stamp. But then, you're asking the ABS to just give you a cheaper version of it. I don't understand why you would want that.

If the maker drops out of sight, the value of the knife falls and they lose money. They must trust that you are committed to staying in knifemaking.

I agree. Would a Guild membership, or having made 1000 knives, or having made knives for 10 years before joining the ABS not also show similar commitment? None of these (which I haven't accomplished) would be taken into consideration at all. The three year rule does objectively define what "commitment" looks like to the ABS. On the other hand, it doesn't accurately measure much about what it takes to be a committed knifemaker.

Guild membership shows more commitment than waiting three years. It's also objectively defined. The Guild has offered reciprocal membership to mastersmiths. The ABS to this point has not offered any concession to the Guild members. Something to think about.

You're earlier comments show that you understand the value of possessing a stamp. But then, you're asking the ABS to just give you a cheaper version of it. I don't understand why you would want that.

There's the main point of disagreement, rephrased again. We don't believe that what I or Travis are asking for is "cheaper." What we're putting forward for consideration is that there may be more accurate ways to measure commitment, and that those ways may not include a time requirement. Nobody is asking for a personal exception. Nobody's asking for a free pass on fit and finish, or to only have to bend our test knives to 85 degrees. Our argument is that the three year wait does not add value to the stamp. The commitment of the knifemaker to the craft certainly adds value, but a calendar is a poor way to measure commitment.

Am I less or more committed to the craft than a maker who has made 14 knives? Depends on the knives, mostly. Some can make MS with 14 knives, some can make 14 paperweight knife shaped objects. That number is a poor measure also.

Apparently the Fry boys were writing at the same time again, but I'll leave my post up even though it contains much the same discussion:

|quoted:

Your earlier comments show that you understand the value of possessing a stamp. But then, you're asking the ABS to just give you a cheaper version of it. I don't understand why you would want that.

Steve, I refer you to my comment from below, which was included in my previous post precisely to address this concern that you had raised:

"Nobody is suggesting that the standards be lowered. In fact, if they were more rigorous I would welcome the challenge! Making them less cumbersome does not reduce their rigor."

The point we are trying to make is that the waiting period is NOT a standard, but rather an arbitrary rule which I have argued is counterproductive to all of the stated aims of the Society, regardless of whether or not it may have once been useful. I truly can't see how committment is demonstrated by unproductive waiting. One doesn't have to actually DO anything during this period except wait. While it can give someone time to develop their skills, and while I agree that time is required to develop the necessary skills, there is no logical connection that requires that this specific amount of time has anything to do with skill building or committment. How is a three year wait from the date of joining the ABS relevant to a bringing a maker with five prior years of experience up to ABS quality standards? Isn't committment demonstrated better by the five productive years already passed?

The tests are good, great in fact, and I've tried to make it clear that I support them fully. I think that passing them is what requires the demonstration of committment. If I could think of something to make the tests even more rigorous and the results therefore more inherently valuable, I'd be all for it. I also recognize that there is some potential economic benefit to achieving accreditted status, and I would be shooting myself in the foot if that were to be diminished. I've tried to make it clear that I have no expectation that any change to this rule would happen in a timeframe short enough to affect me, and that such is not my concern.

I sincerely hope that nobody takes offense at these questions. It is my aim to make the ABS better by providing the perspective of a relative outsider (having just joined) regarding what I and many others see as a hindrance to the success of the goals of the Society. I can think of no better way to do this than to ask questions about things that don't make sense to me. There is a real danger that things said in print can be misinterpreted as offensive when such mistake would never be made in a face-to-face conversation. I appreciate that this has so far not happened, and I hope that it does not. Let's all continue to be gracious.

Edited:

After re-reading this thread a few times, including this post, I decided to remove my comments. I'm unsure whether or not it was offensive to any and if it was, I'd like to apologize. I don't believe in a strictly "politically correct" world or never saying something that has the possibility to cause someone discomfort. Even so, a forum, where tone and so many other aspects of communication cannot readily be seen or conveyed, can make comments harsh, though not intended that way.

So, in an effort to keep that from happening, I felt it would be more productive to delete my post.

Jeremy

I have moved this discussion to the General Private Member Discussion sub-forum and left a link to it in the original posting area.

This thread has now gone far beyond the initial post and it is not really so much an informative thread about JS testing anymore as it is an internal debate about policy. The General Private Member Discussion sub-forum is a more appropriate place for such discussions. It has been my responsibility to administer the ABS Forum since the day that I created it. I read each and every word that is posted on this Forum and I administer the rules.

Thanks for the lively discussion, gentlemen. Truly, no hard feelings. Print on a screen sometimes stinks as a way to communicate without too much mis-interpretation. Glad we can all get along and speak nicely to one another. Let's go pound some steel <img src=' http://www.americanbladesmith.com/ipboard/public/style_emoticons//smile.gi f' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />

Jeremy, I wish you hadn't done that, but I understand why you did. You made some very good points that added to what was becoming a very productive conversation.

If I can jump into this discussion, albeit a bit late, I am someone who is currently waiting for my 3-year membership to solidify before testing and I have been making knives for twice that amount of time. My reason for not joining the ABS sooner is more mundane than most, I simply forgot that I needed to do so. I only bring this up because I have made more knives than I can remember, sold almost all of them at some point or another, have enough commissions that it becomes difficult to collect inventory for upcoming shows, and I completely support the idea of the 3-year wait. The truth be known almost none of the knives I have made in the first three years of knife making would have passed the JS jury test. Very few of the knives I made in the subsequent 2 years would have either. I sold my knives in the art-show world and not the knife enthusiast arena. It really took a trip to San Antonio for me to fully understand what was required at the jury test. That was three showrs ago and I plan on testing in San Antonio next January. IMO The 3-year wait is not about developing the skills required as much as it is about developing the mind-set required.

It seems the original question has been side stepped and maybe talked around. All of the posts were thoughtful and respectful. Thanks. So, the question that was not answered has to do with time. Why three years? I think everyone agreed it was arbitrary, as in it was not capricious. There was thought behind it and I remember some of the discussions. Does time ensure breadth of experience? Not necessarily, but no time clearly affects it negatively. Most trades require some element of time prior to acquiring a journeyman card. At the time it seemed reasonable to include it. But it was more than that.

I started making knives in 1978, joined the ABS prior to 1983 and then waited my three years. I learned a lot in those three years. I also acknowledge that someone might join and make a knife or two each year and then attempt to test three years later. While they might pass the tests, chances are they would not. But they might. Another smith makes a hundred knives each year of the three years. However, that does not mean they improve with each knife or that they are better than the person who only made one knife a year. Still, the person with more experience is likely to do better on the tests. So, I agree that the time standard of three years does not ensure that someone is competent to pass the tests, but it does correlate highly with quality. Time is an indirect measure, but it can be measured. If we wanted to look only at the number of knives made, then we could change the standard to one where the smith brings in proof of having forged 100 knives, photos of each, and presents the last 20 for judgement. Then we could drop the time standard and move to a direct outcome measure. But that kind of criteria is absurd and creates a burden on the applicant that is unfair. Perhaps we should add a written or oral examination on the fundamentals of bladesmithing, its history, and metallurgy. That would test directly knowledge since we already have a skill portion. I also believe that if we surveyed all those with JS and MS about whether their skills and knowledge improved during the time portion of the standard, they would almost universally agree that it did. I personally have never heard anyone after passing the test argue that during that time period they did not improve.

My history is that the ABS created criteria that were designed to be as objective as possible without creating an excessive burden of proof on the part of the applicant. It was fair in that each smith was held to the same standards. Three years of experience prior to testing, was arbitrary but it correlates with quality. I want smiths who test to be successful. I believe that if we shortened or eliminated the waiting period more smiths would fail the tests. While the individual may represent an exception to the rule, the population of applicants as a whole benefit from the time requirement.

Yes, we should always review and accept the challenges brought forward by our members. Perhaps it should change. Perhaps it should be longer since our knowledge and skill requirements have increased substantially. Perhaps with all the available knowledge online and that which is written it should be shorter. However, a shorter time to learn more information and practice those skills would argue longer rather than shorter.

Nice discussion,

Dan L. Petersen, MS

Good post Dan, some food for thought.