A Change in the ABS JS testing

[Geoff Keyes]

For all of the JS candidates out there.

 

Changes to requirements for JS Presentation Knives

 

"Effective immediately, applicants for the JS stamp must have a minimum of two (2) knives among the five submitted with at least six (6) inch blades, and all of the knives submitted must have guards or bolsters."

James Batson, ABS Chairman

August 28, 2012

 

I read this to say that integrals are OK, but simple slabs with no bolster or guard are not.

 

Geoff

[Doug Lester]

I would love to know what was behind this change. I feel that it pretty much has to be related, at least in part, to something that happened at the ABS symposium at Troy, Ohio being that the changes came out only three days after it. It attended the presentation of judging requirements and it seemed to me that there were a lot of hidden requirements that an examinee wouldn't find out about without consulting a master knifesmith, and maybe not even then. I asked about the maximum length allowed for knives submitted for judging, other than the performance test, and could get no more answer than it shouldn't be too long. One of the presenters said that if an examinee put the sheath beside the knife that he would judge it even though other judges might not. It is basically unfair to have unstated requirements for judging, like the bolster or guard requirement used to be. Maybe they need to rule specifically on things like ferrels or ricassos or whether a blade must have a primary and secondary grind too. One of the presenters in this class guaranteed that an examinee would not pass the judging unless s/he attended a class like the one being given or at least consulted with a master bladesmith and that's wrong. A person should be able to read and follow the standards and be able to pass.

 

Doug

[Geoff Keyes]

My suspicion, and it's only that, is that Deitrich's JS suite crystallized something the board had been thinking about for some time, I suppose you could ask them. In the past the board has been slow to impose any change to the testing procedures. The last time was '06 or '07 (when they put in the "no damascus" rule). The testing procedures are only about 40 years old, and they are evolving under the pressure of the number of makers trying to get their stamps. I expect that they will continue to do so. Up until now they have always allowed no bolster pieces (though most MS's would have told an applicant not to do more than 1 or 2).

 

As far back as '05 (my first trip to Blade), the judges have always said "If you don't want it judged, don't put it on the table". You should expect that they are going to look at everything you give them, and you can't very well ask them not to look at certain parts.

 

They haven't made a ruling on maximum length, as yet, though they do say no swords or axes. At some point some applicant is going to come in with a long piece and claim it's a knife. At that point they will have to decide on a size cutoff point. Until then, it's wide open.

 

Maybe they need to rule specifically on things like ferrels or ricassos or whether a blade must have a primary and secondary grind too.

 

Maybe they do, but they have mostly ruled on the side of letting the maker make those kind of decisions.

 

One of the presenters in this class guaranteed that an examinee would not pass the judging unless s/he attended a class like the one being given or at least consulted with a master bladesmith

 

Do you remember who said that? It has never been the policy of the ABS to restrict access to the stamps to only those makers who can travel to the (just a very few) ABS schools. I do think you would be well advised to have your work looked at by an MS, or at least a JS, and get a critical eye on your work.

 

and that's wrong. A person should be able to read and follow the standards and be able to pass.

 

Why? In any other field you would have to study, and probably take classes from accredited teachers. For the ABS, you just have to be able to pass the performance test, and meet the standard of work (since that part is subjective and hard to define, that is where a good critical eye comes into play. At the very least you need to have looked at a knife or two that RECENTLY passed the judging). If you choose to try for your stamp without finding out what that is, you are not maximizing your chances. I think the judges are as fair as they can be, given that they are all folks just like us . My experience is that they want you to pass, so long as they don't have to compromise their standards.

 

If you want to go down the ABS road, then you have to follow their (our, I should say,) rules. If you are unsure, or if you feel that they need to make something more clear, then talk to the board, or a local MS. Otherwise, don't go that way. There are plenty of great makers who not ABS members.

 

Geoff

[ryanwrath]

Besides having the title JS or MS beside your name, what is the draw for going through with the testing?

[Geoff Keyes]

That's pretty much it. There are collectors out there who collect ABS blades, and it's pretty much the only organization with testing standards and procedures. I believe that there is a German group with a testing regime, and a South African one as well. I don't know much about either one.

 

It's something like putting an MD or PhD behind your name, it says something about your ability to go through a (mostly) objective process. I earned my JS and I'm quite proud of it. In and of itself, it's just some letters. For me, it's a public declaration of my intent to do the highest quality work. I'm working toward my MS right now for the same reason.

 

I do want to say that I have only the highest regard for the people that pursue this craft, everyone brings something to the table, and we all benefit by sharing in it. The ABS road has worked for me.

 

 

Geoff

Edited September 3, 2012 by Geoff Keyes

[Doug Lester]

I'd have to dig into my notes to find the schedule for the symposium to look to see who the presenter was but it's late at night and I'm starting to get a headache. If I find it I will send an Email to you.

 

My point is that it is one thing to say that you have to have knives with mono steel blades, two of them with blades a minimum of six inches long and all of them with either a bolster or a guard, good balance, well fitted without gaps, and finished with no scratches and all the rest and be judged on those criteria. It's another thing altogether for someone to show up for judging with knives meeting the description of the standards only to be told they had to have things they didn't have or had things that they shouldn't have that were not mentioned in the standards. If there are standards that must be met then they should be stated up front and not something that is arbitrarily decided by the pool of master smiths that the judges are chosen from which seems very much like what you do have. That is the type of thing that will get you sued. Why should someone be penalized just because they don't have the resources to drive to meet with a master smith who can go over the test knives with a fine toothed comb and receive the secret knowledge? Shouldn't a person at least have a chance of fulfilling the requirements by reading the the standards and trying to meet them. Do you honestly feel that having unstated standards that you can only receive by seeing the right people is right? If you do then maybe the ABS should be sued on a regular basis until it learns to treat people fairly or goes out of existence. If you want to make it a requirement to attend one of the ABS schools or study with a master knifesmith then state it. Other accrediting agentcies do that but they don't keep part of their requirements unstated and unavailable to those who want to test.

 

As for myself, I'm rather indifferent as to whether or not to join the ABS. As long as people put on knife shows, and maybe if they don't, I'll still make knives for the sake of making knives. I don't need the ABS nearly as much as it needs people like me. The presenter of the course stated that Bill Moran was a poor judge because he was too lenient. Maybe Mr. Moran was a good judge because he was fair. Maybe it's the others were poor judges because they were unfair.

 

Doug

Edited September 3, 2012 by Doug Lester

[Dave Stephens]

This kind of political wrangling is precisely why I prefer our forum to the organized guilds or societies.

 

Let's remember we're all friends here, guys. This sounds like it's getting a little heated.

 

Not trying to intrude--this is clearly a worthwhile conversation--just a gentle reminder about the tone we all sort of agreed to keep on our little oasis of peace and courtesy here in the flaming wasteland of the Internet.

 

Cheers!

 

--Dave

[Geoff Keyes]

I don't want to get into an argument. In my talks with various ABS judges, Ed Caffrey, Mike Rodebaugh, and a couple of others, I've been told that the JS judging is by far the hardest. There is a lot of subjective stuff going on. In particular, they are not looking for perfection, but they don't want to see the same mistake repeated over 5 pieces. With the MS there is hardly any wiggle room, if it's not dead nuts, you're done. They aren't going to take a micrometer to a piece, but they will probably use a business card to see if a piece sits even on a flat surface, and they might use a table edge to check for symmetry.

 

It's another thing altogether for someone to show up for judging with knives meeting the description of the standards only to be told they had to have things they didn't have or had things that they shouldn't have that were not mentioned in the standards.

 

Do you have a specific instance where this happened, and what was being held up as a flaw?

 

Why should someone be penalized just because they don't have the resources to drive to meet with a master smith who can go over the test knives with a fine toothed comb and receive the secret knowledge?

 

First, as far as I know, there isn't any "secret" knowledge. Or if there is, I must have missed it when I got my decoder ring . Second, in order to do the performance test, you have to meet up with an MS at some time, that is a good time to have some of your work with you to be looked over.

 

Do you honestly feel that having unstated standards that you can only receive by seeing the right people is right?

 

If there were "unstated standards", I'd agree with you that that would be unfair. I haven't seen any examples of where that has happened. I'll be happy to speak to any instances where you think that has gone on.

 

ABS Standards I've just read through these, and these, and it seems pretty straight forward to me.

 

The presenter of the course stated that Bill Moran was a poor judge because he was too lenient. Maybe he was a good judge because he was fair. Maybe the others were poor judges because they were unfair.

 

I had the honor of meeting and spending some time Mr. Moran before he died. I don't think he ever said a harsh word to anyone. It's quite possible that he would make a bad judge for just that reason. I'd much rather be judged by the harshest, stickler to the rules, than have it said that I skated through because the judge didn't want to hurt my feelings.

 

Like you, I make knives because that is what I want to do, the ABS has nothing to do with that end of my work. If you don't want to join the ABS, then don't. But running them down because of a perceived "unfairness" is also not fair. If you have a specific complaint, then make it. I will listen to you and try, as fairly as I can, to answer you. The ABS is, at best, a fairly loose organization, but I don't find them to be a closed minded, old boy, group. They are just people, with a strong love of knives, knife makers, and knife collectors.

 

Geoff

[Christopher Price]

Dave, thanks for the reminder. I've been biting my virtual tongue here for a bit, and aim to keep this under a "black heat" so to speak.

 

 

 

My only problem with ABS standards is the apparent disconnect with their mission statement "to celebrate the hand-forged blade" and the standards that erase any evidence of that forging. You could do all 5 on a mill or grinder, and with hand-finishing and proper heat-treat, get a JS stamp. Nobody would ever know. I find it an awkward place for the organization to be, and after paying dues for a few years, decided to not re-up because of this.

 

 

When I look at the work of Jesus Hernandez, or our friend Wieland, or any other great makers who are forging beautiful work, where their hand in its making is obvious, purposeful, and contributory to the aesthetic beauty of a knife, I wonder about the value of a stamp that requires one to abandon all those elements of craftsmanship to earn it.

 

 

 

I hope all our paths lead to the same place: good craftsmanship, elevation of skill, fellowship in sharing our knowledge, and satisfaction in a job well done. Some are making this their living, and I wish them all well.

[Bill Hoffman]

I submitted 5 knives for JS Testing the same year that Geoff received his stamp. I didn't pass. Why? My work was

terrible. I didn't have a Mastersmith check over my work. If I had, it would have saved me some embarrassment.

But now I understand what I did incorrectly, and my work has improved for it. Did I think it was unfair? Perhaps

for a moment, but I realized that the ABS has told me what I needed to know, and I didn't follow that advice.

Shame on me.

 

I attend many hammer-ins and always sit in on the JS/MS requirements session. It serves to remind me what

I need to know and what I need to do. You must simply submit your knives which will meet the requirements

and then make what you want.

 

For me the stamp is a worthy goal. I have two degrees and 60 credits past my Master's in Education and earning my

JS will mean more to me than all the other Post Grad work I have done. If I thought the process was unfair

or skewed I wouldn't be bothered. But it's not.

 

If having your work judged by your peers and receiving their approval in the form of the stamp is important,

do the work to ABS standards. If it's not important to you, then go about making your best work and have that be

your focus.

 

But most of all, have fun and advance your talents and skills to the best.

 

Bill

Edited September 3, 2012 by Bill Hoffman

[Geoff Keyes]

Hey Bill,

 

How are you doing? If I understand your post, you are still thinking about going for your stamp? Good for you!

 

Bill makes an important point. The ABS is not asking you to change what you do, they are asking that you make 5 knives that will meet their requirements. That is just the jumping off point. The ABS has no control, or interest in controlling, what you do thereafter. Look at Don's work, for instance. His post MS pieces are often well outside the "ABS style". I can't think of anyone who would argue that they aren't quality.

 

I think there are a great many makers on this board, Jesus and Wieland included, who could get their JS (and MS stamps, for that matter) if they wanted to. There is no harm if they don't, it doesn't diminish any one of us.

 

Geoff

[Michael Kemp]

Yep, it seems pretty likely to me that the length requirement is a reaction to my cousin Dietrich's set of JS presentation knives.

 

I'm no judge - but the design, craftsmanship, fit and finish of his set lit my eyes up. Like any decent passing set of JS presentation blades would. I could not quit picking up that one with the red maple large-lobed handle and fondling it. That is a sweet design - it looks odd but feels so good in the hand!

 

The ABS judges passed his blades. That's the bottom line.

 

Not all voted for them, and the irritating issue is not knowing if those that voted against were voting on the written criteria, or on the unwritten expectations that there would be at least one clip point Bowie and two Loveless style drop point hunters in the set.

 

They passed the set, then changed the rules.

 

I'm working on semi-retiring from the "day job" of 30+ years and getting serious about bladesmithing. I expect to go for my JS, since there's no upper age limit <grin>. And frankly, I'm not a hunter. I love Bowie knives but I they don't figure in my daily life (I have not been in a physical fight since Junior High). I expect to be making mainly kitchen blades, because kitchen knives are what I use most, my multitool and clippit tie for 2nd place, with the 9" blade brush knife bringing up the rear for chores around the property. So if what the ABS judges REALLY want is at least one clip point Bowie and two Loveless style drop point hunters in the set - I would REALLY appreciate them putting it in writing. Otherwise I'll present a set of mainly kitchen blades that match the written criteria.

 

And I'll be ready to do that because when all is said and done, ABS judges did the honorable thing:

 

They passed the set, then changed the rules.

 

I love the forged blade. I want to see if I can get good enough for the JS. If I don't get to the judging in 2013 or 2014, Dietrich (and my sweetie) will be giving me hell!

[Doug Lester]

Geoff, you ask for an example but you supplied one yourself. Mr. Deitrich's suit. I take it that it was over the resentment of not meeting standards that were not published or he otherwise was not informed of. Which was it, not having guards or bolsters on his test knives or not having two that were at least 6" in length? I checked at the ABS site and the standards, as published in 2010, before the amendments added mid week, there were not published requirements that required guards or bolsters or specified any blade length. In short, he must have felt that the standards that he was judged by were unstated, capricious, and arbitrary and sought financial compensation for the money he spent going to wherever he was judged at plus punitive damages.

 

Another example, to fill your request, is that one of the more regular contributor to these board stated that the late Bill Moran had to intercede on his behalf to get his knives judged because they didn't have any ricassos. This requirement is totally absent from the published standards, still. This could lead to a situation where one applicant could submit a knife that four of the seven judges present accept, even without a ricasso, because the knife is otherwise well made and they felt a ricasso would be out of place on that style of a knife and then fail someone else's knife or knives because four of seven judges don't feel the exception is warranted in their case. In short, they, the judges, perform in a capricious and arbitrary manner. At least close enough for a trial judge or a jury. Even if the ABS successfully defends it's judges actions it could cost thousands of dollars to do so. Plus, even in the absence of legal action, you will still have someone portraying the ABS collectively as the south end of a north bound herd of horses. A very effective method of advertisement, even if it is negative.

 

The presenters on the ABS standard class given at Troy also could also not come up with what was the maximum allowable length of a blade. The standards states quite clearly that swords shall not be submitted for judging but there is not a definition of what constitutes a sword. It sort of boils down to "I can't tell you at what point a knife becomes a sword but I'll know it when I see it". What about a knife with a long blade? It's entirely possible that the master smith the applicant is working with sees no problems with a well proportioned knife with a guard and very good fit and finish, and a 14" blade but four of the seven judges don't agree. I think that you would be hard pressed to convince anyone that a 14" blade by itself constitutes a sword but unstated and arbitrary standards imposed by a specific panel of judges says that the blade is too long. Combine that with a possible history of a similar and equally long knife being accepted at another show under a different group of judges and the ABS ends up faced with another law suit, hurt feelings, and a bushel of negative advertising. Which, in my book, would be well deserved.

 

The system in place now depends almost totally on the discretion of the judges on any given panel and there is no right of appeal. Even if you go to one of the ABS schools, attend the classes ABS puts on on judging standards, and work with a master bladesmith, except for the very few written standards, passing or failing is totally dependent on the collective judgement of the majority of seven judges and nothing, except for those few written standards, presented by the ABS or other master bladesmiths is binding on them. If standards are unwritten then they subject to arbitrary change. If they are subject to arbitrary change then they are unbinding and unreliable and cannot be conformed to except by happenstance.

 

Now if this is the way the ABS wants to conduct business, fine. I see no real advantage to me in expending the cost of money and time to win a stamp. I'm just a hobbiest and likely never to be anything else. If I wanted to make this a business then I would undoubtedly think differently. However, if they want to improve public relations, attract a larger membership, and avoid future legal action then they might want to make the standards for judgement a little more specific. Actually, many of the things that the presenters at the Troy class said were essential, such as good symmetry, tight joints, and the absence of scratches, you know the common sense stuff, are not supported in the written standards of the ABS. It's almost all totally arbitrary. It all pretty much comes down to what the seven judges on any given panel like and dislike. I went to Troy thinking that I might want to consider joining the ABS but left thinking that this was one heck of a way to run a railroad and there was nothing in it for me. The discussions of this week have only reinforced that feeling.

 

I'm going to try my best to make this my last comment on this subject because I've said all that I have to say and, in the end, the ABS is perfectly free to do what they want; reap any rewards or suffer any consequences their actions bring them.

 

Doug

[Michael Kemp]

Doug - Geoff was referring to Dietrich's *suite* of knives - there is no suit involved.

 

And I'll repeat myself - in my view, the ABS judges did the honorable thing:

 

They passed the set (suite) of knives and gave my cousin his JS.

 

Then they changed the rules so that future applicants could see in writing what they are looking for.

 

To me it seems appropriate to ask the JS candidate to make-to-specification. As long as the knives are judged based on the written specification. That's what they did. Then they clarified (in writing) something they were looking for that had not been codified yet.

 

Michael

[Geoff Keyes]

I think we're pretty much done here. I posted the notice of the change in the requirements because I thought that it was important, and that some of the folks working toward their stamp might have missed it. I didn't want to cause an argument, but I felt, as an ABS smith, I needed to answer the questions (good, reasonable questions) that Mr. Lester brought up. If anyone has comments or questions that I can answer, please PM me. I'll be happy to give my take on things. That way we won't burn anymore bandwidth on this.

 

Geoff

[Bill Hoffman]

Hi Geoff,

 

Yup, taking my second shot in San Antonio this winter! I suppose if I had a real question about the requirements

I'd simply give one of the judges a call and ask for clarification. BR has suggested this on more than one

occasion, if you're not sure about a fine point, simply ask. Simple. Nobody's offended, every Master Smith

I've spoken to has offered good info. They really don't want you to fail and are more than willing to help.

 

I've got to find out if a well fitted habaki meets the requirement for a guard/bolster. If not, I'll simply make

a different knife. But I WILL ask this time.

 

Michael, I'm also glad there's no upper age limit. 66 in a couple of weeks. I suppose I could become the

oldest JS.

 

Bill

[Doug Lester]

Oh, heck, so much for trying to drop this. Ok, my bad on misunderstanding Geoff's comment on the Deitrich's suite but the point still remains that the standards for judging knives are still arbitrary and almost all standards that you can find out about through the ABS or ABS master bladesmiths are not binding on any judge because they are not written for the most part. Even the most basic things about fit and finish and blade design cannot be defended by the standards because they are not written. Almost all if the "deal killers" that were presented at the class on judging standards cannot be supported by any written rule because there there is none. Just like with the problem of journeyman applicants submitting damascus blades with cold shuts and inclusions and expecting a pass because "it's damascus". Again, it sounds like the ABS ended up having to put out forest fires with Deitrich's knives instead of preventing them. I take it that Michael's comment that the ABS did the right thing indicates that, initially, they did the wrong thing. If not, what was the issue?

 

I was totally put off by the presenters for judging standards not being able to come up with any better answer for the maximum allowed length of a blade other than essentially that they couldn't really tell me but they'd know it when they saw it. I'm even more put off by the realization of how very arbitrary the standards are; that there are no written requirements for most things that are going to be required. From the way things are being done it looks like an applicant could have a knife fail at one show and have it pass at a later show with different judges with different standards. How much damage has the ABS done to itself done to itself with these arbitrary rules. How many members have driven away because they felt that they had adhered to the standards as they read them only to find out that there were also unpublished standards that had to be adhered to. How many go back home and tell other knifesmiths that the ABS is a bunch of jerks intent on denying accreditation to people who don't fit in with "the group".

 

If the ABS wants the test knives to be free of irregular scratches, have smooth lines, not have the back of the handle arch up above the spine of the blade, have the bevels ground evenly or even have a straight blade then there should be written minimum standards saying so. It is really not too much to ask. Don't rely on one of the most rare and abstract things in the world-common sense.

 

Doug

[Alan Longmire]

Time to drop it, guys.

 

I could (and did, but deleted) write several paragraphs about the subject, but all the points have been made already. You choose your own path and you make yourself happy, that's all that's important.

 

Geoff, thanks for bringing up the new rules. Doug, if you don't want to join the ABS, don't. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything.

[Podmajersky]

I don't want to kick this back up, but since there is so much talk of Me and my Knives I feel I should make a statement.

 

For the record, yes it was my set of knives that caused them to add the 2 over 6 inch minimum rule. You can see them here: http://www.bladesmithsforum.com/index.php?showtopic=23577

 

Doug for what it is worth, I am proof that it is possible to do everything you are saying should be possible. No Master Smith saw any of my presentation knives before they were put on the table for judging. None of my knives are Standard "ABS styles".

 

I had 2 judges vote no pass. One felt I didn't have enough variety and failed on the no more than 2 knives of any one style criteria. The other no pass vote was one of the judges felt my bolsters were not perfect enough.

 

The deliberations on minimum size requirements happened by the board after judging and played no part in whether I passed or not.

 

Yes the deliberations are "subjective" to write a set of rules that would define acceptable tolerances and minutia for any possible knife would be unwieldy and incomprehensible.

 

The easy way to get a JS is to get lots of feedback and follow it, the hard way is to get some feedback and ignore it, and the wrongheaded way is to do it the way I did. I've been making things for my whole life (40+ years), I have an Industrial Design degree, I am a perfectionist, I have an eye for fine detail, and I explicitly engineered the set to showcase the broadest possible set of fabrication skills. Will all that in my favor I still didn't give myself a better than 45% chance of succeeding when I walked into the room.

 

As to lawsuits since anybody submitting to judging agrees "...to accept the decision of the Judging Board without question." Any lawsuit would be thrown out without merit.

 

I would be more than happy to discuss this further over PM or email with anybody.

 

Dietrich Podmajersky JS

 

p.s. I'm not intending this to continue the discussion in this thread. If you have something to say to me please take it off line.

[Doug Lester]

Agreed, peace. There are points that I could make and points made that I will never agree with but to no good cause. I still consider that the ABS has some serious problems so I will take Alan's advice and not join, which I had already decided, but I'll respect those who do join and help run the organization. I also apologize for where I jumped to the wrong conclusions but my basic problems with the ABS remain unanswered and most of my opinions on the matter remain unchanged. If anyone wants to discuss this further then pleae post me directly but, depending on the content of your letter, I may not be willing to answer you. Please respect that.

 

Deitrich, don't be so trusting in the power of waivers. Most aren't worth the ink it takes to print them.

 

Doug