I agree with the length requirement.

I'm less keen on the hardware requirement. Qualitatively speaking, I feel that the presentation set should demonstrate a variety of styles; I don't think that the lack of a guard/bolsters would necessarily render a knife deficient toward that goal. As a Journeyman Smith, I have made knives with guards and with bolsters and without either. I feel confident that a Master Smith would be able to look at them and agree that they are all JS level work, regardless of handle/hardware configuration.

I would suggest that a better rule would require at least one knife with a guard and one with a bolster--thus demonstrating that the applicant can execute both. It might even be worth while to require one knife without either; I argue that it can take just as much (or more) skill to effectively execute a simpler design while maintaining the quality and workmanship demanded by the JS presentation test.

Zack

Zack,

The board of directors will study your proposal concerning JS requirements on juried knives.

What we are looking for on juried knives at the JS level, is the ability for a bladesmith to make a basic good quality knife. The guide lines that we have set forth allow the judges to see if the JS applicant can make knives that fulfill that goal. From time to time adjustments to those guidelines are made to better clarify what we expect to see in the juried knives.

The reason for requiring guards and/or bolsters allows us to determine if the applicant has the ability to successfully meet that requirement. If you cannot fit a knife at the Journeyman Smith level with a guard or bolster, there is no way you can expect to do the same on Master Smith knives. Once a person receives his or her JS they can make their knives with or without guards or bolsters. MAKE WHAT THE JURY WANTS TO SEE AND THEN DO WHAT YOU WANT LATER. We suggest tht all applicants for JS and MS attend at least one of our critique sessions at a hammer-in before attempting to pass the JS or MS jury. These sessions are not required by the ABS to be attended by all JS and MS applicants, but it has been proven over and over again that those who did NOT attend at least one session usually fail their jury the first time out.

The bar has been set high many years ago by our founding fathers and a hundred and thirty some Master Smiths since then. We require anyone who wishes to apply for JS or MS rating to do so, but they must also produce knives that reach those high standards set by the previous JS and MS bladesmiths.

Please feel free to contact me at any time for further dicussion on this matter.

Semper Fi,

Joe Keeslar

JS Judging Team Leader

ABS Vice President

I applaud the rule changes. Knives without a guard or a bolster can be of js quality; but often they are not.

Should a smith of js abilities be able to put a guard or a bolster on ANY knife that he builds, absolutely.

I am sure that Mr. Jonas can make knives that leave no doubt as to the standards he has achieved and that his knives reflect this.

That being said; there are always a few applicants that use the two knife guard/bolster rule to put on the most basic of guards/bolsters possibe. Say; a small hunter and a small utility knife. This is a far cry in difficulty factor from a longer bowie or fighter. No matter how nicely done, a bolster on a utility knife does not show your ability to do a ferrule and guard on a bowie knife.

The js panel can judge ONLY what you have submitted; no more,no less.This is very important when you think about it.

Nicely done knives of professional quality; and of VARIED styles; will always be a snap for a js stamp.

Doing the barest minimum seems to be the stardard for some people; while others choose to reach for a much higher level. I think these new rules are of really no matter except for those applicants just trying squeeze in and use the rules to their advantage.

Mike

On one level, I can see why some might have reservation on the guard/bolster rule change as they may feel that the presentation set should reflect the applicant. But on the other hand, I really like that you are told in advance what the judging panel wants to see. As Mr. Keesler said, just give them what they want to see. It is much better to know the guide lines they are going by so you are not surpised when you present your knives. If you've worked for months on your presentation knives only to get told it wasn't what they are looking for, it would be mighty upsetting.

While I've not talked to Joe, or any of the board members concerning these changes, when I first read/heard about the changes, my mind went to the time when Damascus was "outlawed" on JS test knives.....I just happened to be a JS judge during what I believe lead to that.....an individual had submitted damascus knives for JS judging, but they were simply not even close to the level of fit and finish required for the JS level. When the judges brought the individual into the testing room, and gave him the news that he had failed, his response was "But I made Damascus! Those knives are Damascus!" In other words I got the distinct impression that the individual thought the fact that he had produced/used Damascus should be cause for the judges to overlook the obvious flaws in his presentation knives.

After that particular rule change, I can remember getting many calls and emails from potential JS applicants asking if they could use Damascus for guards....or other "fixtures"/parts of their knives. In short, trying to "game" the rules. And I SUSPECT that is what occurred in this case. I've been an ABS member for a LONG time, and an MS for a dozen years......in all that time the ABS has never changed the rules on anything....they have only sought to clarify rules when someone goes outside the "spirit and intent" of those rules.

Achieving an ABS JS or MS rating is a worthy challenge for anyone, and I applaud the clarifications of the rules. Personally, my feelings are that when someone manages to "game" the rules, and achieves (or attempts to achieve) a JS or MS rating by doing so, it only dilutes/waters down the the significance for all others who have achieved that rating.

MANY times I have heard comments such as "The ABS is changing the rules on us!....making it more difficult!" No! The ABS has not changed....it's the Bladesmiths who keep bringing better and better knives to the judging room that set the standard.

Hi Friends,

At the risk of being interpreted as attempting to "game" the rules, I'd like to ask a clarifying (for me) question. Would integral bolsters be within the spirit of this new rule?

Aloha, Phil

Phil:

I think that it is a good question. Thanks for asking.

I have requested an official answer to your question.

To Aloha Phil,

The answer is yes, integral bolsters is considered to be a bolster.

James Batson

Ha, ha...THANKS Jim!