Upon re-reading my post a few times I realize there are a few quick points I need to add.

First, none of the people who have spoken to me about this topic have meant to badmouth the ABS in any way. They have simply pointed out what, to them, appears to be a glaring omission in the current testing and certification process for rated smiths.

Second, the testing and judging process already places a significant burden upon all those involved. The ABS judges give freely of their time to educate and mentor developing bladesmiths, and deserve all of our gratitude and respect for doing a difficult and often thankless job. They often have to put up with a lot of grief from disgruntled and bitter applicants, when instead we should be praising them for their efforts and thanking them for their many contributions, both inside and outside of the judging room. To even suggest adding another layer of work to their already full plate seems presumptuous and unfair, and this is certainly not my intent. Again, I only bring up the topic because it's already "out there," and probably deserves our attention "in here."

Thanks again for everyone's time and understanding.

Derrick, I have no knowledge of the alleged Stock Removal Mastersmith so I cannot speak on that.

However, as many of you know, I am an advocate of better forging, even amongst the ABS. I also realize that some ABS makers, even rated ones, could use some blacksmith training to help them to broaden out in their overall knife making skills. I am willing to help them myself or to make suggestions on projects to use for forging exercises. This said, I don't think I am ready to be any more forceful than to encourage others to get better.

By the time a maker is a Mastersmith, he or she should indeed be able to hand forge a blade. But there again, what defines a forged blade? Is it the same for me as you? I know a fine blacksmith who is going through the testing for JS. I'll bet he's just as nervous as the next guy when presenting his knives. His strong point may be forging but can his finishing skills keep up?

Something to think about.

I have no knowledge of the so-called "stock-removal Master Smith," but at present, I see this as rumor and innuendo. I do, however, have some knowledge as to what the ABS requires in the way of blades for testing.

During Jim Batson's first term as Chairman, there was a definition written for the "forged to shape" blade, and it has been incorporated into the syllabus for the ABS Intro class ever since. The description is as follows:

FORGED TO SHAPE

A. Blade profile should be forged with the point located properly. No more than one-eighth inch should be ground off any point to match the desired profile.

B. Cutting edge should be straight, centered, and no thicker than a nickel.

C. Distal taper should be forged for at least one-half the length of the blade.

D. The tang and choil should be forged according to the design.

E. Forging should be done at the correct temperature to control grain growth.

F. Normalizing and/or annealing should precede grinding and heat treatment. Heat treatment should be dictated by the intended use of the knife.

Hopefully, this will help with this thread. While it's no secret that new guys will likely need somewhat broader tolerances with a couple of these items, they're good goals to strive for.

While it's no secret that the ABS rules require all of a testing applicant's blades to be forged, it's also no secret that we depend on the honorable conduct of the applicants as to the knives they submit for review. What may be lesser known is that the testing Master Smith is authorized to have the Journeyman or Master Smith applicant forge a blade in his presence. In the case of the MS applicant, he may also be asked to make a billet of pattern-welded steel. A review of the testing rules on the ABS website will clear up a lot of questions and/or issues. Can the rules be improved? Sure they can, and we constantly upgrade the rules for clarification, and these changes are posted on the website for you.

My first thought when I read:

Never once during the ABS JS and MS certification process is a bladesmith’s forging skill ever tested or even observed. All he is required to do is present completed knives for judging, and attest that he forged them himself.

was what Greg mentioned:

What may be lesser known is that the testing Master Smith is authorized to have the Journeyman or Master Smith applicant forge a blade in his presence. In the case of the MS applicant, he may also be asked to make a billet of pattern-welded steel.

I personally have conducted a number of performance tests for both JS and MS applicants. By the time they've come to me for testing, I have already witnessed what most of them are capable of at the forge. If there is any question in my mind as to their abilities at forging, then I exercise the option of having them forge a blade or billet.

More to the point of the initial post..... What I get from it is that there are individuals who are questioning whether or not a Mastersmith is forging all of his blades, and/or that they are using CNC equipment? To me thats kind of like closing the barn door AFTER the horse has come home. The individual has already proven his forging abilities in that he/she has passed the JS and MS testing. So I have to wonder what the problem(s) are that others are having with how the individual is producing his/her blades? Could it be the fact that the individual can afford machines that many ABS members (or other knifemakers) cannot? About the only "violation" I can think of is that the individual might be doing a lot of stock removal, and marking it with the MS logo? Beyond that, I have to echo what Greg said:

we depend on the honorable conduct of the applicants as to the knives they submit for review

I can remember past experiences where some made a fuss because blademsiths used power hammers. There was also a time when show goers at Blade would walk up to the table and ask if a Milling Machine had be used in the production of a certain knife....these days both of those examples are taken for granted.

I get the impression that whats being questioned is the fact that if the person holds a Mastersmith rating, the assumption is being made that ALL of his/her blades should or must be forged? Just not sure I understand where the issue(s) lie.

Personally, I think one reason you don't see more "forged" rules imposed by the ABS is because the board has likely discussed it, and realized that imposing such rules would "open a can of worms" or a "pandora's box" for the entire organization.

Again, just my personal opinion, but I feel that by the time an individual has taken themselves through the AS, JS, and to the MS level(s), they've pretty much earned the right to produce knives in whatever manner they choose, and I suspect whomever the individual in question might be, they are likely using the methods they are, based on business decisions, rather then the notion that everything must be done in the traditional manner.

well I am glad to see the wording for how close to shape is required, Rick Dunkerly had mentioned that there was a written standard when I was doing my performance test last july but could not remember the wording. I might suggest this be added to the rules for testing as when I read through them last I saw no mention of this standard anywere.

MP

Thanks everyone for your thoughtful input. The forging guidelines from the Intro class syllabus that Greg posted above are very helpful, and are precisely the sort of clarification that I was looking for, but like Matthew I have never seen them published anywhere before.

I also commend the ABS for teaching proper forging techniques at its schools and hammer-ins. Though not every ABS member will take an intro class, the ABS still provides multiple venues for apprentice smiths to learn these skills. In fact, I consider the education, training, and mentoring provided by the ABS and its individual members to be at the core of what makes this such a great organization.

Ed's comments about the use of powerhammers and milling machines in producing forged blades is also pertinent. We all strive to produce the highest quality knives we are capable of, and if certain tools and equipment allow us to work more precisely and efficiently then we are right to use them. I do not begrudge anyone using modern tools and equipment to make a better blade. In fact I encourage it, and myself do the same.

But this is not about any one individual and how he chooses to make his knives. That's really none of my business, nor do I want to make it my business!

When I go back and read the ABS mission, with its specific emphasis on "preserving and promoting the ancient craft of forged knives," I sometimes wonder if its focus has deviated a bit. Over its nearly 40 years of history the ABS and knifemaking in general have certainly grown and evolved in ways never imagined by the organization's founders, but today, newer makers, as well as the public-at-large, tend to take most of their cues about the ABS from its testing and certification standards, i.e. what the ABS considers important when bestowing the title of "Master" to one of its smiths. This is where the proverbial rubber meets the road, and today's emphasis in testing and certification is far less on "preserving and promoting the ancient craft of forged knives," than it is on producing clean, precise, and aesthetically pleasing knives out of carbon steel and damascus.

Asking an applicant to forge a blade during performance testing is currently left to the discretion of the Master Smith administering the test, but based on my own experiences and observations, this discretion is very rarely used, nor are there any clear and widely published guidelines on what would be considered a passing grade in such a forging exercise. So there does seem to be a slight disconnect between the ABS' stated mission and its certification process, as the potential certainly exists for a maker to achieve Master Smith status without actually being able to forge to the standards Greg posted above. This is not rumor or innuendo; it is simply the way the system is currently set up, and it speaks directly to the public's current perception of what it means to be an "ABS Master Smith."

If it were up to me, I would publish the written forging guidelines on the ABS website, and incorporate forging as a requirement during the performance testing. And one day when I'm ready to test for Master Smith, I will welcome the opportunity to demonstrate my forging skills.

If it were up to me, I would publish the written forging guidelines on the ABS website, and incorporate forging as a requirement during the performance testing. And one day when I'm ready to test for Master Smith, I will welcome the opportunity to demonstrate my forging skills.

That's the "can of worms" or the "Pandora's Box" that I spoke of. For example, let's say there was a mandatory forging exercise for each JS or MS applicant, and let's say the requirement said "Individual must be capable of forging a given blade design to 80% complete" How could the written rules ever quantify "80%"? How would each individual MS who oversees a test quantify 80%? What if an applicant forged a blade to what he/she thought was 80%, and the judge didn't agree? Should an individual be failed because of such a thing? Would you be willing to go into a testing situation with those parameters?

See what I mean? Its one of those things that once you start going down that hill, its a very slippery slope.

I have to refer back to what Greg said:

we depend on the honorable conduct of the applicants as to the knives they submit for review

Just a few thoughts on the subject.

I earned my MS rating in 2009. At the time, I was doing my best work, but I still was insecure as to whether my best work would meet minimum requirement to pass the MS scrutiny. Well, insecurities aside, I passed and have moved on to a stage in my knife making that has really showed me how little I knew in 2009. Although I still have many weak areas, I have concentrated on my strengths and made a deliberate push to broaden my skills. The door has opened for me to build on that foundation of requirements, that is, the minimum standards of the JS and MS judging program.

While the standards are listed in quantifiable terms, we are still individually humans who don't each have the same potential or abilities. Thus the requirements are set to a minimum. High? Yes, but a minimum for that class of work. Now, the question here is "what is the minimum?"

I would hope that what ever the standard is for the minimum requirements, that it is not so high that it makes no room for individual weaknesses, relatively speaking. Right now, the rules do make that room or I myself would not be rated as such. Since I got my MS stamp, I have still taken courses to improve, following the examples of other mastersmiths I know. The term I heard was "we don't want to rest on our laurels". This is "leading" by example, which is not required of mastersmiths but is much appreciated.

In the same way, some other things, such as forging skills, are not required past the minimum but are much appreciated. It's hard to set a minimum requirement on that, without reinforcing the requirement with a specific opportunity to learn it. At this point, does the ABS intro class stress such a standard? As far as I can see, it mainly stresses heat treat and making a blade that will pass the performance test. Would an advanced forging class be in order?

|quoted:

That's the "can of worms" or the "Pandora's Box" that I spoke of. For example, let's say there was a mandatory forging exercise for each JS or MS applicant, and let's say the requirement said "Individual must be capable of forging a given blade design to 80% complete" How could the written rules ever quantify "80%"? How would each individual MS who oversees a test quantify 80%? What if an applicant forged a blade to what he/she thought was 80%, and the judge didn't agree? Should an individual be failed because of such a thing? Would you be willing to go into a testing situation with those parameters?

See what I mean? Its one of those things that once you start going down that hill, its a very slippery slope.

Ed, I understand your point completely. But one could say the same things about the current judging standards as well. The ABS doesn't even try to quantify JS or MS "quality" in design, fit, and finish, and these standards themselves have seemed to evolve a bit over the years, but somehow the judges are still able to figure it out. Sure, there are some basic criteria, like even plunges, a centered cutting edge, an even blade finish, tight fitting guards and pins, visual continuity between ricasso to handle, etc., but the rest, such as how tight, how even, or how clean the knives must actually be, is left to the personal discretion of the judges in the room on that given day. Yet even without any quantifiable guidelines, the judges still manage to do the job quite well, and in such a manner that the vast majority of members accept their judgment without protest.

But actually having some type of measurable guidelines already in place for the forging part of the bladesmith's required skill-set should make this aspect of the testing that much easier to administer than trying to adhere to the nebulous notion of "Master Smith quality" in design, fit, and finish.

Lin, if an ABS advanced forging class were offered, I'd be very interested in signing up. There's still a great deal for me to learn, and I'm sure it would make me a better bladesmith.

The ABS doesn't even try to quantify JS or MS "quality" in design, fit, and finish

I have to respectfully disagree with that statement. I believe the ABS does a very good job at defining those aspects while still giving any applicant the best possible chances for success.....

The below is taken directly from the ABS website on JS and MS standards:

Although the criteria are the same for Journeyman Smith and Master Smith

applicants, the judging standards are much more stringent for the Master Smith

rating. The overall quality for the Journeyman Smith is in the range of "very good"

to "excellent". The quality for the Master Smith is "excellent" to "superlative". The

Master Smith knife (European Quillion dagger) should be art quality as well as an

"art knife". The applicant is cautioned that one substandard knife may result in

failure. Therefore, he/she should submit only his/her best work.

The main points here are whats expected of both JS and MS Presentation knives....

The overall quality for the Journeyman Smith is in the range of "very good"

to "excellent".

I can see where some might feel this is too vauge, but look up the definitions of each....you'll find that this standard allows for some mistakes. Having judged a number of times at both the JS and MS levels, I can tell you that JS is by far the more difficult for any judge. Mistakes are anticipated, and to some degree expected, but the tough part for a judge is deciding if a given mistake is enough to not pass an individual, rather then it being... is the mistake small enough to ignore.

The quality for the Master Smith is "excellent" to "superlative".

Again, looking up the definitions for each of those words (excellent and superlative)......This is as straight forward as it gets. I remember my first experience at judging at the MS level. I was as nervous as those with knives in the judging. To his credit, the head judge noticed my anxiety and asked me "Whats wrong?" When I said that having been there, and knowing how much of a person goes into these knives, I was nervous about being worthy to judge the work. His response was a mild chuckle, and..... "This is going to be the easiest judging you've ever done....if it looks like a mistake, it is a mistake, and the knife fails."

The ABS is about more then the actual knives we produce, and their perfection or imperfection. Part of the journey to the MS rating is learning how and why things work or don't work when it comes to forged blades/knives. I had similar concerns when I was in your place. I felt the ABS was dictating what knives I had to make, and how I had to make them. It wasn't until after I had complete my journey to Mastersmith that I realized that the process was as much about learning the art of craftmanship, as it was about creating a knife that either was "good enough" or not.

Sure, there are some basic criteria, like even plunges, a centered cutting edge, an even blade finish, tight fitting guards and pins, visual continuity between ricasso to handle, etc., but the rest, such as how tight, how even, or how clean the knives must actually be, is left to the personal discretion of the judges in the room on that given day

I guess my question(s) would be how would you establish a definate/numerical "set standard" for those aspects you mentioned? And how could the organization ever hope to track the logistics that it would involve? Would it be a numerical standard such as, Plunge cuts must be within .0005"? Then there would have to be some repeatable method to measure that tolerance. That in turn would require the equipment/tools to measure it, then theres the human factor.....would anyone judging be required to be certified in the use of the measuring tools? Would an individual judge be required to bring the measuring device with them, or would the ABS be required to provide the devices needed? Would those measuring device require a certified claibration? How could the ABS place a specification on "eye appeal", or how well various materials match or don't, or does the overall knife physically "flow"? Like I said before.....it would be a "Pandora's box".

Personally, I think that the rules are the way they are, to be in favor of the one who is testing for a given rating. Were the ABS to be boiled down to sheer precision/numerical values, it would eliminate the "human factor" which I believe is the difference between a "craftsman" and a non-craftsman. I believe its by design that there are some "unwritten" objectives within the ABS, moreso directed towards personal achievement and craftsmanship which makes us not only better Bladesmiths/Knifemakers, but also better as a person......those aspects simply cannot be reduced to a given measurement.

Ed, I think you and I agree with one another much more than you realize. I brought up the judging standards specifically to point out the fact that we don't need to measure and weigh every individual part of the knife in order to make a reliable determination about the bladesmith's abilities and skills. In the judging room, Master Smiths such as yourself rely upon their eyes, their hands, and their many years of hard-won experience to measure the quality of work without ever having to pull out a loupe and a set of calipers. Words like "excellent" and "superlative" are entirely subjective, but somehow the judges still know the difference!

I'm reminded here of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's famous words in Jacobellis v. Ohio: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it." Justice Stewart was talking about pornography when he wrote those words, but the same sentiment can probably apply to the judges in the testing room as well. They may not be able to intelligibly define the attributes they understand to be embraced within the shorthand description of "Master quality work," but they know it when they see it. And this particular aspect of the JS and MS certification process is probably still much more difficult than simply determining whether or not an applicant can actually forge a blade.

Indeed, it really doesn't need to be that complicated. A Master Smith administering a performance test can simply observe the applicant forging a blade, look the blade over, and then certify whether or not the applicant possesses JS or MS level ("excellent" or "superlative") forging skills. No calipers required.

Again, for me it all boils down to one very simple premise. If the ABS is going to call someone a "Master Smith," I believe it makes sense to try certify that the individual is, in fact, an actual smith. If, on the other hand, forging is not a part of the ABS mission, then why not just remove all references to the "forged" blade and hand out "MK" (Master Knifemaker) stamps to the makers with the prettiest knives? Heck we could even do away with most of our bylaws, such as the rule stating that "blades that are not forged by the bladesmith shall NOT bear the MS or JS stamp or any hallmark of the Society." Sure would simplify matters...

Would not being titled a "Master Bladesmith" entail all aspects of making a finely finished forged knife?

I believe it would.

And with that being the case, the knives presented for certification should exhibit a wide variety of expertise in many facets of knife making - not just the ability to forge a knife.

By the time in the ABS that virtually anyone spends getting to the point of testing for MS, they have taught, they have instructed, they have given lessons, they have had visitors to their shops, they have had articles in magazines, etc. etc. etc., and have been vetted on many levels by their peers.

I can imagine no way one could be at the MS testing level without already having proven - many times over - that they can forge a knife blade, and do it well.

|quoted:

Would not being titled a "Master Bladesmith" entail all aspects of making a finely finished forged knife?

I believe it would.

Yes, which is precisely my point. The ABS tests and judges all of these aspects except for the forged part. For an organization that purports to represent the forged blade, this seems like a pretty significant oversight.

By the time in the ABS that virtually anyone spends getting to the point of testing for MS, they have taught, they have instructed, they have given lessons, they have had visitors to their shops, they have had articles in magazines, etc. etc. etc., and have been vetted on many levels by their peers.

I can imagine no way one could be at the MS testing level without already having proven - many times over - that they can forge a knife blade, and do it well.

That may be the case for you and I and most of the more active bladesmiths in the U.S., but certainly not all. There are more than a few who work only part-time at knifemaking and simply don't have the time or the inclination to teach or entertain visitors in their shops. At the JS level in particular, there are probably dozens of makers you've never even heard of, and you can't find anyone who's ever seen them swing a hammer. I am not suggesting that these people can't or don't forge their knives, only that they have not all been vetted in the way that you have indicated. And who is vetting the international bladesmiths that are now joining our organization? We have rated smiths in South America, Australia, Europe, Africa, and Asia, where the distance, as well as the language and cultural differences, create formidable barriers to any kind of informal peer vetting process. In some countries, people are downright secretive about their process and won't let anyone into their shop, especially a peer who they worry might steal their secrets. This is actually quite common in Europe and parts of Asia.

But I get it. People don't like to upset the status quo. Those who have followed a specific path often don't like to see that path questioned by anyone, even if it could mean improving or broadening that path for those who may come after them. And perhaps, to expand the testing criteria now might make previously rated smiths look like they got through the gates back when it was still easier to do so, even if it's something as simple and easy as including a brief forging exercise into the performance tests. But when I hear about people who can hardly even forge a blade gaming the system and getting a stamp, I think it diminishes the value of that stamp for all those who worked so hard to earn it the right way. And based on all the private comments I've received stating the same, I know I'm far from alone in feeling this way.

Derrick......I get the impression that there is something deeper on your mind. What exactly is it?

It keeps sounding like your lobbying for something that already exists.

even if it's something as simple and easy as including a brief forging exercise into the performance tests.

Thats already in place....is it the fact that its an option versus mandatory?

But when I hear about people who can hardly even forge a blade gaming the system and getting a stamp, I think it diminishes the value of that stamp for all those who worked so hard to earn it the right way.

Could this be possible? I suppose anything is possible. But it would be highly unlikely. I simply can't image someone being able to make it to the JS level, and certainly not to the MS level without having the necessary level of forging skills.

I also have to wonder if the individual in question might have done what was necessary in order to achieve the MS rating, and afterward, simply chose to do things another way? Might there be some age, or physical reason the individual chooses to build knives the way they do? I certainly don't have those answers, but I trust my instincts, and my instincts tell me that this is more a case of a person, or small group of people grabbing onto a rumor and running with it.

As I stated previously, personally I feel that once an individual has achieved/been awarded the MS rating, he/she has earn the right to build knives in whatever manner they choose.

On another note, if there is something you feel needs changing, or added, the best way to go about that is to contact and present your input to one of the ABS board members, who in turn will present it at the next board meeting.