Travis,

That's a nice clean dagger. I like the damascus. Overall, a very good job.

Per the guard; I see that as more of a double guard, not a quillion style guard. In my mind, the quillions should have some decorative distinction between them and the center section of the guard piece. Interesting question. I'll be interested to hear what others think.

When it comes to making your MS dagger, play it safe and make it in a way that there will no questions about the construction of any of it. There are plenty of photos available of daggers that have passed the test. Make something similar to them. Don't build a knife that will require a definition of a part to see if it will be acceptable.

Steve, I resized as requested.

Regarding quillons, this one wasn't really an attempt to make a quillon dagger, but did make me wonder about the definition. I expect that when the time comes, I'll have something much more dramatic to show.

Very nice dagger , if you are not pleased with it ,please let me send you my address and you can give it a new home with me..ill pay for the shipping of course..

Thanks Travis,

It is a good question.

Nice work Travis! Thats the way to start out....a smaller dagger blade, then work your way to the 10"+ versions.....I did about 2-3 shorter blades before starting a full 10" one....the one thing I can tell you is that those extra inches on the blade will drive you nuts. For reasons I can't fathom, once the blade gets beyond 4-5" it gets harder and harder to keep the grind lines even and the center ridge centered.

Whenever someone asks me about what a quillion dagger is, I always refer them to those buit by Bill Moran.....since that is the model that most in the ABS think of when "quillion dagger" is mentioned. When I built my test dagger I had several pics of the early Mastersmiths' daggers hanging above the bench, and tried to incorporate the elements of each that appealled to me.

Thanks Ed! Our little chat was quite helpful, as was Steve's tutorial, and you may recognize the damascus as one of the billets I was working on while you and I were at Jim's that first time.

I glued a G10 depth stop to a 32 tpi hacksaw blade to make my grooves a uniform .025" deep and .040" wide, but had a bit of trouble regulating the depth anyway. That's a kink to work out for the future. Finishing out the bottoms of those flutes was maybe the biggest pain of all. I found a 3/32" hole to be just the right size for the wire and a toothpick, and the little bamboo toothpicks that had a little head turned on them went in and and broke off at just the right length to anchor thee wires. The first wire went ok, the second not as well, but by #3 I had it down pretty good.

Regarding grinding daggers, I can see what you mean. This is my 3rd or 4th attempt over the years, and the first I'd consider successful. I plan to do 2 or 3 more before testing time, which is at least 3 years away anyway.

Thanks for all of the advice along the way.

I had meant to reply sooner but my computer ate my first attempt.

Anyway let me just say that this is a beautiful, very elegant dagger. I really like the complement of colors, while the lines and proportions seem to have a very natural and appealing flow. The coined spacers, with their subtle contrasts, are also a very nice touch. A superb piece overall.

Regarding your question about the quillions, let me first say that I am in no way qualified to answer in any official capacity, but when I think of a "quillion dagger" the first thing that comes to my mind is the parrying dagger (sometimes called a main gauche, or left hand dagger) common to Europe during the Renaissance period. These daggers, which often accompanied a rapier, almost always had two fairly long, often curved and sometimes offset quillions designed both to protect the hand and to parry, block, or catch an opponent's blade. The often fluted or wire-wrapped handle was meant to provide a sure grip; the pommel offered a good counterbalance to make the dagger quick and maneuverable. The blade was typically slender and tapered but quite robust at the center ridge, with a strong point designed to pierce light armor and create a deep wound channel. I have seen a few examples in museums that were easily 3/8" thick at the ricasso. Basically, these types of daggers were the "tactical knife" of their day, and their design reflects that.

But if there's one person whose opinion I would seek out, it is Kevin Cashen. He has studied countless historical examples, made several important modern interpretations, and frequently taught and lectured on the subject at various ABS functions. Moreover, he has judged at the MS level and sits on the ABS Board of Directors, making him eminently qualified to discuss the standards and criteria imposed by the ABS.

Wikipedia defines Quillion as:

... either of two transverse projections forming a simple crossguard of a sword.

There could be some debate about that definition as to how it relates to the MS test dagger. According to that definition your guard would be acceptable, but would probably be too simplistic to be satisfactory on a test knife.

Considering the purpose of the Mastersmith testing procedure it seems, at least in my view, that one's goal should be to create a European Quillion Dagger that would surpass the minimum requirements for the knife. A good rule follower that has a good eye for straightness and handy with tools can make a dagger that can pass the test. That is certainly one strategy when planning the dagger. It's my belief that when the skill and artistic talent is within the maker, he should show it on this knife above all others. This is his/her masterpiece. It should epitomize the sum total of the maker's skill at that point but also exhibit it as an art form. This makes it more interesting and unique.

BTW, that one looks nice. Good work.

The confusion/debate is not new. One of the reasons I developed my dagger lecture was to help answer some of these questions and try to come up with some reliable definitions for people to go with in testing. In that process I found that the source of much of the confusion was some discrepancies between the ABS ideas of the dagger and the actual historical weapon. I had no choice but to go with historical fact over the tastes of my contemporaries, and so much of my teaching has also been geared to educating people about the original European daggers, so that I would not have to deal knives that did not even resemble the specified “dagger” in the judging room. As far as how much interpretation can go into this, I have seen many times in print that the ABS expects a classic European quillon dagger, bear that level of specificity in mind during this discussion.

First things first, the very name used at times in the past by the ABS is incorrect. It is “quillon” not “quillion”, there is no “I” in the second syllable of quillon. Quillon is an Anglicized version of a word from Spanish or French that referred to the “legs of the blade.” Since I studied old European sources I never saw “quillion” used anywhere but in the ABS until our own Mark Zalesky mentioned that it first appeared in a late 19th, or early 20th century American text that is notorious for the misinformation it has given to the antique knife field. There was some initial hesitation but I believe I have now managed to get the ABS on board with the correct spelling.

Next, there were many different daggers in the European blade bloodline, but the ABS sort of narrowed it quite well by specifying the “quillon” dagger. As Derrick correctly pointed out, the daggers on which quillons developed into a prominent role are the ones used in the left hand while the right hand was occupied with a sword (most often rapier). By this definition a quillon dagger should be designed with this function in mind.

As a judge, I believe that not only should one be able to distinguish and make the specified knife, but at the level of “Master” one should also have a very good grasp of design vs. function. I may seem tough but I believe the title of “Master” implies a comprehensive knowledge of design and function and not just fit and finish; I am sure we have all seen knife shaped works of art that are impeccably finished but were better suited for a display case than any practical use. This is why I also totally reject the notion of the dagger as an “art” piece, there was never a more serious blade in history than the dagger, and therein lies its greatest beauty, but only if it is made to be effective in that most serious of tasks. It is the same quality that makes the eagle or falcon objects of reverent awe while the chicken is walking soup stock.

I have to admit that one of my pet peeves are “quillon” daggers that have no quillons. The challenge is in extending those “legs” out from the blade while keeping everything symmetrical and in-line, little half inch lugs turned on a lathe betrays a level of confidence falling far short of “Master” to me. I want to be able to catch and displace another blade with a quillon dagger, I want it to protect my hand and be able to deliver an effortless thrust into tough materials designed to resist the same. In a way the ABS makes it all too easy by telling folks the exact knife to study and understand, rather than expecting a “master” to have a more broad based knowledge of many blade forms and functions.

Having said that it should come as no surprise that I would give this dagger a no vote. It is a very nice piece and would get a thumbs up as a Journeyman blade, from what I can see on the photo, but it would not meet my criteria for a quillon dagger for Master judging.

Now that the quillon discussion has had its ride, I'm going to offer a critique for Travis from what many would consider an ill-equipped source. This is just what I see when I look at that knife, and please remember, my opinion is just that, an opinion.

First, it's a beautiful knife. It appears to have nice grind, straight plunge cuts, good finish, and the color and texture contrasts are well conceived and executed.

Now the stuff that catches my eye and bugs me. That overly dark area of the blade a little less than halfway down from the point. I do like the intrinsic "randomness" of the pattern, but that big dark spot stares out at me and says "something went amiss here." I don't much care for the size and shape of the guard. The blade and handle have such an elegant soft curve and that guard looks kind of fat and blobby in comparison. The length of the ricasso from front of guard to plunge line looks larger than the thickness of the three piece spacer. This could be a result of the photo angle, or not (the top photo looks better than the center one), but it looks unbalanced to me. Now the criticism from the peanut gallery is done.

All in all, I think this is a dagger you should be proud of. The flutes look very clean and the wire inlay came out great. Is this your first attempt? Is the dagger a take-down?

I think this dagger is great for what it was intended - an exercise in dagger-making for the future. It has a well-finished appearance, though it does miss some of the basic requirements of the ABS Master's dagger. Blade length, lack of quillons and pattern layer count, to name a few. I think Travis was aware of all of this, and offers this piece for critique to kind of help give himself some benchmarks, particularly since he's stated that he intends to make several more daggers in the future. Fact is, though, he forged and ground his first dagger blade. Good thinking. My first dagger blade wasn't so much a diamond cross-section as somewhat shifted parallelogram.

The testing section of the website gives a pretty fair rundown of the requirements of the master's dagger, although any written material can be improved. Flat guards just don't qualify. I think both Lin and Kevin have already given you great advice on quillon guards, so I'll not beat it to death.

As great as it is to put your work out there for evaluation, you will always be best served by taking your finished knife to a Master, preferably one who has sat in on the Master's judging a time or two. Any Master can certainly help, and a photograph just doesn't reveal the entire knife. A lot of mistakes are picked up by touch before they're seen, and conversely, a little distortion in a photo can make a knife appear to have non-existent problems. The reverse is also true. It really should be handled. Don't take it to the nicest guy you know, or settle for something akin to, "That's very nice."

That doesn't help you. The guy who shows you every little thing he finds wrong is the guy who is doing his job in a Master's critique. The general rule of thumb could be "if you can't see it, you can't fix it." I'd say that at least half (if not more)of getting to the Master level is developing your ability to see your knife in parts and as a whole; to know what's right or wrong and to see it.

The rest is research and practice. You have to push yourself a little further and stretch from time to time, and the best time to do this is before you submit a piece for judging. It's risky business, submitting your first effort at a new process for a critical evaluation.

So for this reason you deserve a big round of applause when you wade out into the deep water this early in the game.

Wow! I hadn't checked back here in a few days, and it looks like the conversation has progressed far more comprehensively than I expected. This is what I was hoping for. Mr. Neely has the right of it--I know full well that this one wouldn't meet the requirements of the MS test dagger, but wanted some practice in the making, and just this kind of discussion here. Thanks!

The comment made about pictures is very, very true. I know full well that there are half a dozen minor flaws that would disqualify this particular knife as a test piece, at least in my mind. Only one or two show up in the pictures, but I know they're there. I mention all of this to highlight the difficulty of real critique based on studio pictures alone, and I am grateful for the effort that has been made.

This was not only my first (successful) dagger, it was also my first attempt at a mosaic pattern weld. It didn't go exactly as I would have liked, but I am content with the results and thankful for what I learned in the process. It was also, as mentioned, my first attempt at wire wrap and fluting. It isn't a takedown but I think the next one will be.

Y'all have given me a lot to consider, and I appreciate all of the feedback and critique.

Now on to my first attempt at a frame handle!