Seems like to me there should be some sort of copyright infringement, especially using the model names...
Hey, does this guy do the blade show? I might like to stop by and chat with him.
Bo even started off kind of copying Scagel's style initially, but he did branch out and do his own thing.
And whats with using the Randall made bags!!!

Rick, if they're really calling that a "Rick Bowles Skinner," you've got one heck of a lawsuit. They can't do that without your permission. Have your lawyer fire off a nasty letter to them at the very least.

Quote:

---

And whats with using the Randall made bags!!!

---

Common marketing scam used by slick eBay sellers to have their non-Randall knives or other carp show up on a search using the word "Randall" The guy hawking the stuff uses it to get around Ebay's prohibition against key word spamming, like listing a knife as "not a Randall" so it shows up on a search for Randall Made knives.

You're looking for a Randall Made knife and up pops someone else's whatever that has nothing to do with Randall. Mostly junk you never heard of, weren't looking for and probably aren't the least bit interested in.

In my opinion it's on the same level as a call from a telemarketer and has the same amount of class.

Regards,
Doug

I remember Dubie bought a knife made by a guy named Martin (not Martin Knives in Texas) and it was a dead ringer to the Randall / Bowles Dealer Special. Very very VERY similar grind, but made about 20 years before the RBS knife was introduced. So, hard to say who is / was first to come up with some designs. In all fairness, someone could ask if the RBS was a new-style Martin knock off. And even then, this Martin maker probably got the idea from someone 20 years before he decided to make it.

Another great example: the two "one arm" knives shown in another thread on this forum. My point being: I don't see anyone criticizing Bo in that thread, and rightly not. It's just his variation of a knife he liked: no more, no less.

I agree that this maker Calvin Reese calling his knives "Randall Model 23" or "Rick Bowles Special" is rather deceiving. I was going to buy his RBS myself, but that mirror finish is not my cup of tea.

Dubie: before I forget... can you shoot a pic of that Martin knife and post it in the thread?

Regarding using Randall cases with knives so the word Randall can be put in the title: if it comes up in your search and you don't like it -- don't look. Most agree that it's just good marketing and there aren't any rules against it. IMO, good marketing should not be on par with telemarketing. Those vermin are the worst, almost as bad as ambulance chasers.

Don't look at it? When you do a search for Randall Made knives there it is, just like spam in your mailbox. No way not to look at it even if you don't open it.

I don’t disagree that the practice works. Spam in your email works, junk mail works, and even telemarketing works, that’s why they do it and that’s why we all have to put up with it. Doesn’t make it any less annoying.
Couldn’t agree more that ambulance chasers are a disgrace to the profession, most of that attorney advertising makes the rest of us want to retch, nonetheless, it’s good marketing so your criticism, though well-founded, is more than a little inconsistent.

Just because a particular marketing practice works and there are no rules against it doesn't make it any less annoying, more acceptable or legitimate. I doubt that Samg and I are the only ones who dislike the practice.

When I get spam in my inbox, I delete it. Simple. Painless. One click, poof... gone. It is what it is, so I don't whine about it. If guys want to put Randall or Lile in the title of something I know isn't a Randall or Lile, I don't look. If I click on it by mistake, no big deal. Life is full of little annoyances, and whiners complaining about them.

Re: "common marketing scam used by slick eBay sellers"

Scam? That's the dumbest thing I've read all day. It's done all day every day by the "slick" and not so slick. It's a marketing tool, period. You're just trying to twist words and flim flam what's widely accepted on eBay and make it appear to be something it's not. Which is cool -- you're a lawyer, and that's what lawyers do.

Re: "so your criticism, though well-founded, is more than a little inconsistent."

No criticism intended, unless you're a telemarketer or ambulance chaser. End of discussion on my part, if you need the last word to feel better about yourself... have at it.

"Life is full of little annoyances, and whiners complaining about them."

So when your argument is demonstrably inconsistent and without merit you resort to name calling?
Excellent debating skills Miles. Well done.

OK. So now your argument is I am a lawyer so I twist words and write "dumb things". Another personal attack? I guess I struck a nerve.

Too bad this could not have been a real discussion. Others might have found it an interesting debate and joined in.

A common marketing scam is, in my opinion, exactly what we are talking about. Throwing in a Randall case with a non-Randall product is done just so that the non-Randall product will come up on a search for a Randall product. It is done, as we all know, to get around the eBay rule against key word spamming which many people who shop on eBay, including me, find annoying.

You don't share my opinion, fine, but your personal insults don't do a thing to lend credibility to you or to your arguments.

"End of the discussion on [your] part." Not so much a discussion on your part as one personal epithet after the other.

A guy brought a stag-handled knockoff to my table last year. It looked pretty good, but lacked quality of a Randall. It was marked "BR", which he insisted was a "Bo Randall" prototype. He offered it for $200. It was entertaining, not offensive; love those stories at shows.

I know this is an old thread and it has probably been discussed elsewhere too, but if I may, I'd like to add a few words and thoughts.
On the whole I think Sam has summed it up pretty well, and I think there is a fine line between what is acceptable and what not - and I think it is possible to cross over that line.

The question is, where is that line? Another complication is that it is probably not the same for every one...

A few thoughts, which are obviously only my opinion, from which you are welcome to differ, as is your good right.

There are very, very few, if any, realistic knife designs that are new. I am not talking about blades with three tips and more spines than a porcupine - those are just fun/art/show off stuff - I mean working knives.

Sure, you get very individualistic interpretations of those same designs, and some are unique/distinctive - like Randall knives. Or Scagel, Loveless, Ruana, Rexroat etc for that matter - and a good few others. When you see one of those, you just know it is a Randal/Scagel/Loveless etc.
From the perspective of a knife maker, and on condition that it is not a truly unique design, I don't think there is any thing wrong with:
- Making your own interpretation of that knife, loosely based on the original
- Making a tribute knife or knives - either a perfect copy or a very close interpretation of a specific knife and naming it as such. And as a matter of courtesy, if the maker is still around, ask permission. For instance, if I made a custom copy of a Fairnbairn Sykes for a client I would not name it anything but a custom copy of the FS.

What I would find very upsetting is if someone copied a design of mine, made them en masse and marketed as their own, and even using my model numbers/designation, without permission. No matter how well made, no matter what the quality, I'd be very unhappy about it.

Where it does become a very grey area is with some designs - lets take the Randall No 2 Stiletto as example. That I believe falls into the first category I mentioned above - an acceptable own interpretation of another knife - even the Randall shop says it is based on the British (Fairbairn Sykes) fighting knife - although it is larger and substantially more robust. And the FS in turn is based on an age old design - a dagger type that dates probably from at least 1500 to 2000 years ago. No one could claim exclusivity on that knife or probably even an interpretation of it.
But I think this serves to illustrate the last point I made about making copies and using the same model numbers - at the danger of repeating myself, this is an age old design, which has been done in so many different interpretations, that no one could reliably claim exclusivity on it - it is a dagger/stiletto and that is it.

So, to me, if one was to make a copy and designate it as the "No 2 Fighting Stiletto" on a knife that was a dead ringer for a Randall, even to the point of the same style stamping, it means only one thing - you are trying to take a ride on the back of hard work done by others....

I like the Randall Knives. A lot. It would probably be a long time before I could afford another one. In the meantime I may well make myself a copy of the #25 for instance. But I will always call it that - a copy/tribute knife and for my own use only. If I wanted to make a similar type knife for production, I might well use a Randall, or a Scagel or some other knife as "inspiration" but I would make sure that it is my own interpretation of that knife, give it my own model number and still give credit for the inspiration - much like Mr. Bo Randall did with the Scagel knives.

My 2c