Thomas W.'s Comments and the Cryo Revisited
The Kershaw Cryo review lives on. No other article has spawned as many substantive comments as this one, but one in particular is pretty important. When Thomas W. comments, you listen. If you browse knife forums at all, you know that Thomas W. is an active and outstanding member of the knife community and he also happens to work for one of the Big Three--Kai USA.
When an email alert told me that he had commented on the Cryo review, I knew I had to take a peek. What he said was really interesting and given how well respected he is in the community and how much I respect his opinion, I thought it warranted its own post and a response from me. If I were a movie critic, this would be like Stephen Spielberg sending me a note about my review of Lincoln.
Here is what Thomas W. wrote:
Hi Tony
This is Thomas from Kai USA. Sorry to hear of your disappointment with the Cryo.
I'm not really looking to argue with you about your review, although it seems exaggerated.
Just wanted to drop in to let you know that the Cryo is the most popular new item our company has seen in a long time. It's numbers have shown it to be our biggest volume sku in our current line-up. I'm not sure how that could happen if the Cryo is as bad as you advertise. There have been multiple requests for variations of the Cryo (black and bead blast), and the pre-orders on the larger Cryo have been very, very, solid.
Suffice to say, calling the Cryo junk is just not accurate, not even as an opinion. We know knives. We know execution. I own a Cryo. It's far from junk, and I find your claim distasteful and disrespectful.
I'll assume you are here as an advocate of the knife community. Please remember as good as it felt to write this, you have a responsibility to the community, not just your viewers here.
Throwing out the word junk in the easy fashion as you have here is just not responsible. I'm unsure why Blade HQ would utilize you for reviews when you self admit bias, and there is an obvious lack of industry experience/understanding, but little surprises me anymore.
I appreciate the ability to respond here, and would like to shout out to the readers that the overwhelming percentage of Cryo owners are very much satisfied with the knife, as are we.
The Re-Review Policy
This is not a comment I can brush off and it contains points that really made me think, not just about my opinion of the Cryo, but what I am doing writing about gear in general.
In response to Thomas's comments I have decided that I am going to amend my review policy. At the prompting of a maker, I will, at my discretion, re-review a product. The re-review will take place no sooner than six months after the original review is posted. This will be an appeal of sorts (as a lawyer I am familiar with the complexities of an appeal). The purpose of one my reviews is to inform you the reader. It is not to be a smug jerk. I want, above all, to get the review right. I want to make sure my reasons are clear and my opinions are based on facts. I want to make sure that my opinions are defensible as well. But I am convinced, based on 35 years of errors, that even a well-reasoned argument based on facts, can be wrong and so, I am going to re-review the Cryo. This time I will purchase the Cryo and keep it as long as I need to do the review, but I am going to use it for at least a month and I am going to do my new cutting tests with it to standardize the review of its cutting performance.
A more formal statement of the re-review policy will be added to the Contact page up at the top.
Counterpoints
I do want to response to Thomas's points. If Spielberg tells you you got it wrong, you owe him a response.
First to general points. Thomas W.'s comments come when my review of the Cryo is the first hit on a Google search of "Kershaw Cryo Review." Perhaps that is what brought it to his attention. It has not always been the number one hit, but it is now. I mention this because some of Thomas's criticism seems most pointed if you read the Cryo review in a vacuum. If, however, you read it with other things I have written, like other reviews of Kershaw knives, some of the things he says make less sense. The Skyline got an 18/20, the OD-2 a 17/20, the Zing SS an 18/20, the Chill a 16/20, and the ZT 350 an 18/20 (the Scallion got a worse review than the Cryo with a score of 8/20). KAI USA's products are the second most often reviewed gear on my site, only Spyderco has more product reviews (7 reviews v. 12 reviews). I am not a Kershaw hater and these scores indicate that I know they make good knives. But these are general objections to his points. Let me be more specific.
I'm not really looking to argue with you about your review, although it seems exaggerated.
He stated that he felt my review was a bit "exaggerated". I am not sure what this means, but I think he means that I was exaggerating how bad the knife was. I believe that there certain facts that are simply unavoidable, facts that show the knife to be subpar. As facts, these can't be exaggerated (though their impact can be). First, the weight of 4.2 ounces. I am not a weight maven, but for a knife with a 2.75 inch blade, the weight is just too much. In Episode 4 of Gear Geeks Live Aaron and I hashed out the debate a little and I gave him this list:
Benchmade Griptillian
Spyderco Paramilitary 2
Kershaw Blur
Kershaw Cryo
Then I asked him which was the heaviest. The answer is the Cryo. And here is the more surprising fact--all of the blades in the other knives are significantly longer, around a half inch longer. So based on objective facts--weight and blade length and a ratio of the two--the Cryo falls behind the crowd pretty substantially. That is something I can't exaggerate--it is all facts, inches and ounces.
Then we talked about the Cryo in terms of similarly priced knives. After all, all three of the knives in the example above are more than three times the price of the Cryo. So I pointed Aaron to the Kershaw Zing SS. It shows just how below par the Cryo is in terms of objective measures. The handle material is the same, the blade material is the same, the lock is the same, the country of origin is the same, the company is the same, but the Zing weighs less and has more blade than the Cryo. Additionally, the blade to handle ratio on the Zing is better than the Cryo. You get more blade length for roughly the same handle size and 1.2 ounces less in weight. Again, these are facts, and I can't really exaggerate them. And to bring this home even more, the Zing SS and the Cryo are basically the same price, so this is not a matter of one knife benefiting from a higher budget and therefore better production quality than the other. These two knives are very readily comparable and the Zing SS just gives you more.
As far as other facts, the fit and finish, especially the blade centering, on my knife was bad. It was so bad that I got the scissor effect when I closed the knife as the blade contacted the handle and slid past it. There is no exaggerating how bad my sample was, but perhaps I should not attribute these problems to the whole line. That may have been an exaggeration. I will get another Cryo and find out.
Just wanted to drop in to let you know that the Cryo is the most popular new item our company has seen in a long time. It's numbers have shown it to be our biggest volume sku in our current line-up. I'm not sure how that could happen if the Cryo is as bad as you advertise. There have been multiple requests for variations of the Cryo (black and bead blast), and the pre-orders on the larger Cryo have been very, very, solid.
First, let me say I am so glad that the knife is selling well. I like Kershaw as a company. They won me over with blades and then again helping me prepare a case when a client of mine was charged with possessing a switchblade because of owning a Speed Assist knife (the law banning switchblades in New Hampshire has since been repealed). But liking Kershaw aside, I have a few thoughts about Thomas W.'s comments on popularity.
First, when a knife is brand new good sales numbers are not an indication of quality design or product, but quality marketing. It can't be anything else because no one has the knife in their hands to use. If the sales are this strong ten years from now and/or the Cryo undergoes the CQI of a blade like the Delica, then the sales numbers and longevity will be an indication of quality. Strong sales out of the gate is an indication of a fantastic marketing department, something Kai USA certainly has, not of product quality. After all one of the worst reviewed movies of last year had one of the highest, if not the highest opening weekend grosses (Twilight Breaking Dawn, Part 1 grossed $290 million). Initial sales are not indicative of quality.
Popularity is also not a great judge. After all, quite a few people believed the world was flat and that turned out to be wrong. If popularity or sales numbers were all that was needed to prove quality then this:
would be the third best knife in the world right now as it is really killing it on the Amazon Top 100 folding knives chart. Obviously, popularity cannot a direct indication of quality. Quality items are often popular, but popular items are not necessarily quality items. Over time popularity tends to correlate with quality, but the Cryo is less than a year old and so popularity, right now, at least, is not helpful in evaluating quality.
Requests for variation could be a sign of quality. I asked for a variation of the Cryo in my review. There are things the Cryo does very well. I said it in the review and I said it on the podcast--this knife has good bones. With a few tweaks it would be amazing. But calls for variation can also be a sign of problems. People wouldn't ask for changes if they liked what they already had. They might, but they also might not. Requests for variations does not, in my mind, necessarily correlate to quality. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.
Finally, if the Amazon reviews are any indication (and usually they aren't but with as many as the Cryo has they start to be statistically significant), this is not a knife of universal acclaim. The knife has 243 reviews with an average of 4.37 stars, which is good, but not close to great. The Dragonfly 2, with 53 reviews (an admittedly much smaller sample size), has an average of 4.8 stars. The Skyline, with 208 reviews, has an average of 4.7 stars. If the Amazon reviews are even somewhat helpful, the knife is liked or well liked, but not beloved. The difference of half a star on a 5 star scale is 10%, a sizable thing. I don't think this is the strongest counterpoint, as Amazon reviews are notoriously fickle or silly, but it is all we have to go on in terms of objective metrics.
Suffice to say, calling the Cryo junk is just not accurate, not even as an opinion. We know knives. We know execution. I own a Cryo. It's far from junk, and I find your claim distasteful and disrespectful.
Calling the Cryo "junk" is disrespectful. I don't think it is or should be, but Thomas W. obviously took offense, so I can't really tell him to not be offended (especially given the fact that the "I am sorry you were offended" style apologies are one of my pet peeves). The reason I called it junk was twofold. First it is a clear and concise summary of my experience. The Cryo I got flipped poorly, had poor grip, and was really off centered. It was a junky version of the knife. Second, it calls attention to the main problem I had. I didn't call the knife ugly, I was taken aback by its seemingly cheap fit and finish, materials, and production choices. The design itself is a great one, and with a few tweaks it could be a great knife, but the production issues make it a lesser knife. It might be offensive, but I see my purpose as informing people and the word "junk" was both clear and informative. My intent was not to be disrespectful, though I was aware at the time I wrote the review that could be a consequence. As between being disrespectful to KAI USA and misleading my readers, I would obviously choose being disrespectful, though this is almost always a false choice. My "customers" are my readers, not the folks that make the products. I don't do this for knife companies and I don't do this for money or stuff (I give all of my review stuff away). I do this for the readers and their interests come first.
Thomas's point that calling it "junk," even as an opinion, is not accurate is confusing to me. It is an accurate summary of my opinion. I used facts to back up that opinion. That, it seems to me, is enough to say that my opinion is accurate. You might not agree with it, but there is no doubt that "junk" accurately summarizes my opinion at the time. I should know, after all, it is my opinion.
I also agree with Thomas that Kershaw and KAI USA know how to make knives. They really, really do. They make some of my favorite production blades of all time. I know, right now, that two are on the top of "to buy" list (the 556 and the Injection 3.0). Also also wholeheartedly agree that Kershaw knows execution. If I didn't believe this I wouldn't bother re-reviewing the knife. There are certain things that are fixed, like the size and weight, but I believe, given Kershaw's long track record, that I could have received a very rare Kershaw lemon. So I will re-review the blade. I also think that some of the best knives I have used, for the money, or cost no object, have been KAI USA products. They make fantastic knives. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.
I'll assume you are here as an advocate of the knife community. Please remember as good as it felt to write this, you have a responsibility to the community, not just your viewers here.
I also have to take seriously what Thomas said about being an advocate for the knife community. I realize that what started out as me writing for a few dozen folks has transformed into something bigger. With that bigger megaphone comes more responsibility. Going forward I will take that into account in writing reviews. For the record, I took no pleasure in writing a bad Cryo review. I wanted that knife to be awesome from the day I saw it on a SHOT Show video. If anything the review was written and fueled by a sense of profound disappointment.
Throwing out the word junk in the easy fashion as you have here is just not responsible. I'm unsure why Blade HQ would utilize you for reviews when you self admit bias, and there is an obvious lack of industry experience/understanding, but little surprises me anymore.
I didn't throw out the word "junk" easily. The review took over a month to write and the product took as long to test. The whole reason I use a 20 point system is so there is some order to my opinions. None of these reviews are easy. They all take quite a bit of work, all of which is unpaid.
Thomas also pondered why Blade HQ would sponsor me. I think I do a good job reviewing products and getting the word out. I think I provide lots of content for them for almost nothing. I know, based on commissioned sales, things are going well. But I have no idea why they choose to sponsor this site. I am incredibly grateful, but their motives are their own.
The one thing Thomas W. said that I most strongly disagree with is his idea that bias makes someone a bad reviewer. Bias or subjectivity is the very heart of a review. It is one person's take on something. It is, by its very nature, biased. I even wrote an article on what my biases were and how to account for them in reading a review. I AM BIASED. So is everyone else. The reviewer that tells you they are not is lying. They are the folks you need to be worried about because they are biased and they either don't know it or won't admit it.
I am also going to confess further. I am a huge Kershaw fan. I am always interested in what they put out. I don't follow Gerber or Cold Steel like I follow Kershaw (check my Twitter account, I follow Kershaw and Knife Jen, but neither Gerber or Cold Steel). There is a difference between being biased and being fair. I think that I am fair. I strive to be fair. I bend over backwards to be fair. I try to be transparent as well. I try to ensure I benefit in no way from any review. I reviewed the Tom Bihn Cadet and decided I liked it a lot. But instead of keeping the review copy and sending them my money, I paid for it to go back to Seattle, then once it arrived, I paid for it to come back my way. If I was trying to be slanted in some way, if I was not fair, I wouldn't go to all these lengths. My reputation is all I have. I don't have money or prestige, just people believing I am fair and honest. Everyone has a perspective and so everyone has a bias, but I can recognize those biases and work around them to review things I wouldn't necessarily like or buy and still give them good reviews if the product deserves it.
As for the lack of experience I am the first to admit I have ZERO experience in the knife industry. I don't have any clue whatsoever what makes a knife company profitable or a design good for business. Thomas W. is absolutely right on this account. But I don't think that, on its own, invalidates my opinion. Bill James had no clue what made a ball club successful when he started writing his Baseball Abstracts. He had an idea--the numbers contained crucial information that IN THE INDUSTRY OF PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL were missing. Twenty five years later, the guy that worked as a night security guard at a baked bean factory while writing the Abstracts, has been proven right again and again. He has a World Series ring to prove he is right.
I am not Bill James. I am not as smart as he is. I am no where near the writer he is, but the notion that only those inside the knife industry have meaningful things to say is hard to accept. Maybe I don't understand how the price point of the Cryo requires certain compromises or how the branding shapes the product. But I don't care about this stuff. I have one focus--how good is this piece of gear. It may take an engineering degree to design the knife (though I don't think that is a requirement either) and a business degree to market and sell it. But anyone can use a knife and anyone willing to think about it for a while and write stuff down can speak meaningfully about how well it works.
Conclusion
Thomas W. I am incredibly grateful for your comments. They will change how I write reviews going forward. They were insightful in a fundamental way. We disagree on a few things, but in general, I think you were right. So, for the first time in two plus years, I am going to do a full blown re-review. The Kershaw Cryo gets a second chance.
When an email alert told me that he had commented on the Cryo review, I knew I had to take a peek. What he said was really interesting and given how well respected he is in the community and how much I respect his opinion, I thought it warranted its own post and a response from me. If I were a movie critic, this would be like Stephen Spielberg sending me a note about my review of Lincoln.
Here is what Thomas W. wrote:
Hi Tony
This is Thomas from Kai USA. Sorry to hear of your disappointment with the Cryo.
I'm not really looking to argue with you about your review, although it seems exaggerated.
Just wanted to drop in to let you know that the Cryo is the most popular new item our company has seen in a long time. It's numbers have shown it to be our biggest volume sku in our current line-up. I'm not sure how that could happen if the Cryo is as bad as you advertise. There have been multiple requests for variations of the Cryo (black and bead blast), and the pre-orders on the larger Cryo have been very, very, solid.
Suffice to say, calling the Cryo junk is just not accurate, not even as an opinion. We know knives. We know execution. I own a Cryo. It's far from junk, and I find your claim distasteful and disrespectful.
I'll assume you are here as an advocate of the knife community. Please remember as good as it felt to write this, you have a responsibility to the community, not just your viewers here.
Throwing out the word junk in the easy fashion as you have here is just not responsible. I'm unsure why Blade HQ would utilize you for reviews when you self admit bias, and there is an obvious lack of industry experience/understanding, but little surprises me anymore.
I appreciate the ability to respond here, and would like to shout out to the readers that the overwhelming percentage of Cryo owners are very much satisfied with the knife, as are we.
The Re-Review Policy
This is not a comment I can brush off and it contains points that really made me think, not just about my opinion of the Cryo, but what I am doing writing about gear in general.
In response to Thomas's comments I have decided that I am going to amend my review policy. At the prompting of a maker, I will, at my discretion, re-review a product. The re-review will take place no sooner than six months after the original review is posted. This will be an appeal of sorts (as a lawyer I am familiar with the complexities of an appeal). The purpose of one my reviews is to inform you the reader. It is not to be a smug jerk. I want, above all, to get the review right. I want to make sure my reasons are clear and my opinions are based on facts. I want to make sure that my opinions are defensible as well. But I am convinced, based on 35 years of errors, that even a well-reasoned argument based on facts, can be wrong and so, I am going to re-review the Cryo. This time I will purchase the Cryo and keep it as long as I need to do the review, but I am going to use it for at least a month and I am going to do my new cutting tests with it to standardize the review of its cutting performance.
A more formal statement of the re-review policy will be added to the Contact page up at the top.
Counterpoints
I do want to response to Thomas's points. If Spielberg tells you you got it wrong, you owe him a response.
First to general points. Thomas W.'s comments come when my review of the Cryo is the first hit on a Google search of "Kershaw Cryo Review." Perhaps that is what brought it to his attention. It has not always been the number one hit, but it is now. I mention this because some of Thomas's criticism seems most pointed if you read the Cryo review in a vacuum. If, however, you read it with other things I have written, like other reviews of Kershaw knives, some of the things he says make less sense. The Skyline got an 18/20, the OD-2 a 17/20, the Zing SS an 18/20, the Chill a 16/20, and the ZT 350 an 18/20 (the Scallion got a worse review than the Cryo with a score of 8/20). KAI USA's products are the second most often reviewed gear on my site, only Spyderco has more product reviews (7 reviews v. 12 reviews). I am not a Kershaw hater and these scores indicate that I know they make good knives. But these are general objections to his points. Let me be more specific.
I'm not really looking to argue with you about your review, although it seems exaggerated.
He stated that he felt my review was a bit "exaggerated". I am not sure what this means, but I think he means that I was exaggerating how bad the knife was. I believe that there certain facts that are simply unavoidable, facts that show the knife to be subpar. As facts, these can't be exaggerated (though their impact can be). First, the weight of 4.2 ounces. I am not a weight maven, but for a knife with a 2.75 inch blade, the weight is just too much. In Episode 4 of Gear Geeks Live Aaron and I hashed out the debate a little and I gave him this list:
Benchmade Griptillian
Spyderco Paramilitary 2
Kershaw Blur
Kershaw Cryo
Then I asked him which was the heaviest. The answer is the Cryo. And here is the more surprising fact--all of the blades in the other knives are significantly longer, around a half inch longer. So based on objective facts--weight and blade length and a ratio of the two--the Cryo falls behind the crowd pretty substantially. That is something I can't exaggerate--it is all facts, inches and ounces.
Then we talked about the Cryo in terms of similarly priced knives. After all, all three of the knives in the example above are more than three times the price of the Cryo. So I pointed Aaron to the Kershaw Zing SS. It shows just how below par the Cryo is in terms of objective measures. The handle material is the same, the blade material is the same, the lock is the same, the country of origin is the same, the company is the same, but the Zing weighs less and has more blade than the Cryo. Additionally, the blade to handle ratio on the Zing is better than the Cryo. You get more blade length for roughly the same handle size and 1.2 ounces less in weight. Again, these are facts, and I can't really exaggerate them. And to bring this home even more, the Zing SS and the Cryo are basically the same price, so this is not a matter of one knife benefiting from a higher budget and therefore better production quality than the other. These two knives are very readily comparable and the Zing SS just gives you more.
As far as other facts, the fit and finish, especially the blade centering, on my knife was bad. It was so bad that I got the scissor effect when I closed the knife as the blade contacted the handle and slid past it. There is no exaggerating how bad my sample was, but perhaps I should not attribute these problems to the whole line. That may have been an exaggeration. I will get another Cryo and find out.
Just wanted to drop in to let you know that the Cryo is the most popular new item our company has seen in a long time. It's numbers have shown it to be our biggest volume sku in our current line-up. I'm not sure how that could happen if the Cryo is as bad as you advertise. There have been multiple requests for variations of the Cryo (black and bead blast), and the pre-orders on the larger Cryo have been very, very, solid.
First, let me say I am so glad that the knife is selling well. I like Kershaw as a company. They won me over with blades and then again helping me prepare a case when a client of mine was charged with possessing a switchblade because of owning a Speed Assist knife (the law banning switchblades in New Hampshire has since been repealed). But liking Kershaw aside, I have a few thoughts about Thomas W.'s comments on popularity.
First, when a knife is brand new good sales numbers are not an indication of quality design or product, but quality marketing. It can't be anything else because no one has the knife in their hands to use. If the sales are this strong ten years from now and/or the Cryo undergoes the CQI of a blade like the Delica, then the sales numbers and longevity will be an indication of quality. Strong sales out of the gate is an indication of a fantastic marketing department, something Kai USA certainly has, not of product quality. After all one of the worst reviewed movies of last year had one of the highest, if not the highest opening weekend grosses (Twilight Breaking Dawn, Part 1 grossed $290 million). Initial sales are not indicative of quality.
Popularity is also not a great judge. After all, quite a few people believed the world was flat and that turned out to be wrong. If popularity or sales numbers were all that was needed to prove quality then this:
Requests for variation could be a sign of quality. I asked for a variation of the Cryo in my review. There are things the Cryo does very well. I said it in the review and I said it on the podcast--this knife has good bones. With a few tweaks it would be amazing. But calls for variation can also be a sign of problems. People wouldn't ask for changes if they liked what they already had. They might, but they also might not. Requests for variations does not, in my mind, necessarily correlate to quality. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.
Finally, if the Amazon reviews are any indication (and usually they aren't but with as many as the Cryo has they start to be statistically significant), this is not a knife of universal acclaim. The knife has 243 reviews with an average of 4.37 stars, which is good, but not close to great. The Dragonfly 2, with 53 reviews (an admittedly much smaller sample size), has an average of 4.8 stars. The Skyline, with 208 reviews, has an average of 4.7 stars. If the Amazon reviews are even somewhat helpful, the knife is liked or well liked, but not beloved. The difference of half a star on a 5 star scale is 10%, a sizable thing. I don't think this is the strongest counterpoint, as Amazon reviews are notoriously fickle or silly, but it is all we have to go on in terms of objective metrics.
Suffice to say, calling the Cryo junk is just not accurate, not even as an opinion. We know knives. We know execution. I own a Cryo. It's far from junk, and I find your claim distasteful and disrespectful.
Calling the Cryo "junk" is disrespectful. I don't think it is or should be, but Thomas W. obviously took offense, so I can't really tell him to not be offended (especially given the fact that the "I am sorry you were offended" style apologies are one of my pet peeves). The reason I called it junk was twofold. First it is a clear and concise summary of my experience. The Cryo I got flipped poorly, had poor grip, and was really off centered. It was a junky version of the knife. Second, it calls attention to the main problem I had. I didn't call the knife ugly, I was taken aback by its seemingly cheap fit and finish, materials, and production choices. The design itself is a great one, and with a few tweaks it could be a great knife, but the production issues make it a lesser knife. It might be offensive, but I see my purpose as informing people and the word "junk" was both clear and informative. My intent was not to be disrespectful, though I was aware at the time I wrote the review that could be a consequence. As between being disrespectful to KAI USA and misleading my readers, I would obviously choose being disrespectful, though this is almost always a false choice. My "customers" are my readers, not the folks that make the products. I don't do this for knife companies and I don't do this for money or stuff (I give all of my review stuff away). I do this for the readers and their interests come first.
Thomas's point that calling it "junk," even as an opinion, is not accurate is confusing to me. It is an accurate summary of my opinion. I used facts to back up that opinion. That, it seems to me, is enough to say that my opinion is accurate. You might not agree with it, but there is no doubt that "junk" accurately summarizes my opinion at the time. I should know, after all, it is my opinion.
I also agree with Thomas that Kershaw and KAI USA know how to make knives. They really, really do. They make some of my favorite production blades of all time. I know, right now, that two are on the top of "to buy" list (the 556 and the Injection 3.0). Also also wholeheartedly agree that Kershaw knows execution. If I didn't believe this I wouldn't bother re-reviewing the knife. There are certain things that are fixed, like the size and weight, but I believe, given Kershaw's long track record, that I could have received a very rare Kershaw lemon. So I will re-review the blade. I also think that some of the best knives I have used, for the money, or cost no object, have been KAI USA products. They make fantastic knives. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.
I'll assume you are here as an advocate of the knife community. Please remember as good as it felt to write this, you have a responsibility to the community, not just your viewers here.
I also have to take seriously what Thomas said about being an advocate for the knife community. I realize that what started out as me writing for a few dozen folks has transformed into something bigger. With that bigger megaphone comes more responsibility. Going forward I will take that into account in writing reviews. For the record, I took no pleasure in writing a bad Cryo review. I wanted that knife to be awesome from the day I saw it on a SHOT Show video. If anything the review was written and fueled by a sense of profound disappointment.
Throwing out the word junk in the easy fashion as you have here is just not responsible. I'm unsure why Blade HQ would utilize you for reviews when you self admit bias, and there is an obvious lack of industry experience/understanding, but little surprises me anymore.
I didn't throw out the word "junk" easily. The review took over a month to write and the product took as long to test. The whole reason I use a 20 point system is so there is some order to my opinions. None of these reviews are easy. They all take quite a bit of work, all of which is unpaid.
Thomas also pondered why Blade HQ would sponsor me. I think I do a good job reviewing products and getting the word out. I think I provide lots of content for them for almost nothing. I know, based on commissioned sales, things are going well. But I have no idea why they choose to sponsor this site. I am incredibly grateful, but their motives are their own.
The one thing Thomas W. said that I most strongly disagree with is his idea that bias makes someone a bad reviewer. Bias or subjectivity is the very heart of a review. It is one person's take on something. It is, by its very nature, biased. I even wrote an article on what my biases were and how to account for them in reading a review. I AM BIASED. So is everyone else. The reviewer that tells you they are not is lying. They are the folks you need to be worried about because they are biased and they either don't know it or won't admit it.
I am also going to confess further. I am a huge Kershaw fan. I am always interested in what they put out. I don't follow Gerber or Cold Steel like I follow Kershaw (check my Twitter account, I follow Kershaw and Knife Jen, but neither Gerber or Cold Steel). There is a difference between being biased and being fair. I think that I am fair. I strive to be fair. I bend over backwards to be fair. I try to be transparent as well. I try to ensure I benefit in no way from any review. I reviewed the Tom Bihn Cadet and decided I liked it a lot. But instead of keeping the review copy and sending them my money, I paid for it to go back to Seattle, then once it arrived, I paid for it to come back my way. If I was trying to be slanted in some way, if I was not fair, I wouldn't go to all these lengths. My reputation is all I have. I don't have money or prestige, just people believing I am fair and honest. Everyone has a perspective and so everyone has a bias, but I can recognize those biases and work around them to review things I wouldn't necessarily like or buy and still give them good reviews if the product deserves it.
As for the lack of experience I am the first to admit I have ZERO experience in the knife industry. I don't have any clue whatsoever what makes a knife company profitable or a design good for business. Thomas W. is absolutely right on this account. But I don't think that, on its own, invalidates my opinion. Bill James had no clue what made a ball club successful when he started writing his Baseball Abstracts. He had an idea--the numbers contained crucial information that IN THE INDUSTRY OF PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL were missing. Twenty five years later, the guy that worked as a night security guard at a baked bean factory while writing the Abstracts, has been proven right again and again. He has a World Series ring to prove he is right.
I am not Bill James. I am not as smart as he is. I am no where near the writer he is, but the notion that only those inside the knife industry have meaningful things to say is hard to accept. Maybe I don't understand how the price point of the Cryo requires certain compromises or how the branding shapes the product. But I don't care about this stuff. I have one focus--how good is this piece of gear. It may take an engineering degree to design the knife (though I don't think that is a requirement either) and a business degree to market and sell it. But anyone can use a knife and anyone willing to think about it for a while and write stuff down can speak meaningfully about how well it works.
Conclusion
Thomas W. I am incredibly grateful for your comments. They will change how I write reviews going forward. They were insightful in a fundamental way. We disagree on a few things, but in general, I think you were right. So, for the first time in two plus years, I am going to do a full blown re-review. The Kershaw Cryo gets a second chance.