Why? www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/victorinox-ranger-general-3d-max/468734
Yes I know, but the guy said that he modeled Vic Ranger, instead he modeled piece of sh*t and he is selling it for 42$. So its fake in my opinion.
Foud this story: http://knifenews.com/case-closed-on-counterfeit-swiss-army-knives-victorinox-awarded-9-8-million-in-damages/
Here is a funny one:http://www.ebay.com/itm/Swiss-Knife-Stainless-Steel-Folding-Survival-integrated-91-mm-Gifts-Army/321850835470?_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20131003132420%26meid%3Dc22040f8ab1c4a549729dfce49b173f0%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D111551185464It is not described as a Victorinox - Although it is described as Swiss - Ha HaThe price is OK - ishBut unfortunately some poor sods will still be fooledThe seller has mixed up pictures of genuine Vic Swisschamp with this Chinese (or Swiss as he calls it) knock offThat's naughty - Although he has removed the Vic sheild from the Vic picciesBut scroll down to the picture where the tools are listed and numbered (Chinese characters ... bit of a giveaway)None of it matches up - eg the saw (3) is decsribed as a small screw driver; the mag glass (11) as a nail cleanerHilarious .....
I'm gonna assume that most of you guys have seen this one already. A search did not bring it up though.
Here is a funny one:http://www.ebay.com/itm/Swiss-Knife-Stainless-Steel-Folding-Survival-integrated-91-mm-Gifts-Army/321850835470?_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20131003132420%26meid%3Dc22040f8ab1c4a549729dfce49b173f0%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D111551185464It is not described as a Victorinox - Although it is described as Swiss - Ha Ha
Quote from: WiseDuck on August 19, 2015, 09:06:43 AMI'm gonna assume that most of you guys have seen this one already. A search did not bring it up though. While I think this demonstration is as sad as everyone else I have to bring up a couple of points. As an attack on cheap Chinese knock-offs and a plus for Victorinox quality, this video is a total fail and yet likely highly successful. [More than an attack, it's a demonstration of defense, defense of every person who could come across that dangerous toy-tool. As such, i.e. as defense or even as an "attack" on "enemy" which will hurts your wallet and your body as well, it's an effective educational demonstration of preventing injuries, not fail at all.]It is an example of what I call default reasoning. [The term "default reasoning" is used for drawing conclusions based on what is most likely to be true. The video shows facts of dangerous toy, therefore video addresses the truth, not something likely to be true.]Everybody knows how good true Swiss army knives are so we show how bad this knock-off is by tearing it apart by hand. [Phrase "everybody knows" is a typical example of so called "default reasoning", as it is proven, that everybody does not know how good Swiss army knives are. Tearing apart a dangerous toy is not derived from preceding sentence, neither it's in any way its logical consequence.]QED. ["Quod erat demonstrandum". Till that point you haven't yet demonstrate anything.]Argument over. [Till that point you haven't yet present a single valid argument.]But you can't demonstrate Victorinox quality by demonstrating a competitor's lack of quality. [As already said, video does not addresses (demonstrate) Victorinox quality, but only lack of quality of dangerous toy.]You would have attempt to do the exact same tear-down of a comparable Victorinox knife! And you would also have to trust that the person was trying exactly as hard to tear it up. [If someone would like to do a comparison, then the comparison would be needed.If possible, and in this case it is possible, we would make a comparision in lab enviroment (representing the same circumstances for both) using physical laws; in specific case "force", which can be measured, so no need for "trust" anyone.]I'm sure we've all seen commercials where the flimsy competitor is easily torn asunder but no matter how hard we try, we just can't seem to get a start tearing up our great product. Not something any of us are likely to do to one of our precious SAKs. [Phrase "I'm sure is a typical example of so called "default reasoning" if the premise or conclusion is not proved, and your opinion it's not proven. And many have seen many attempts of tearing up Vics on Tube - it is proven.]This "build ourselves up by attacking our opponent" technique is used in almost every political campaign ad. Just remember it could be the pot calling the kettle black.["The pot calling the kettle black." Really? Vic (not even mentioned in video) calls pristine crap-toy ...? How? What?]
I'm still wondering about what the soap box part means
Quote from: firiki on November 13, 2015, 12:17:13 PMI'm still wondering about what the soap box part means It is when somebody gives a speech or an opinion, often political, on a platform or stage. Way back in the day people would stand on crates to raise themselves up. Just so happened a lot of times, those crates contained boxes of soap.
Quote from: lichan on November 11, 2015, 03:17:50 PMQuote from: WiseDuck on August 19, 2015, 09:06:43 AMI'm gonna assume that most of you guys have seen this one already. A search did not bring it up though. While I think this demonstration is as sad as everyone else I have to bring up a couple of points. As an attack on cheap Chinese knock-offs and a plus for Victorinox quality, this video is a total fail and yet likely highly successful. [More than an attack, it's a demonstration of defense, defense of every person who could come across that dangerous toy-tool. As such, i.e. as defense or even as an "attack" on "enemy" which will hurts your wallet and your body as well, it's an effective educational demonstration of preventing injuries, not fail at all.]I wasn't trying to defend cheap Chinese knock-offs. I just wanted to make the point that it had nothing to say about Victorinox quality.It is an example of what I call default reasoning. [The term "default reasoning" is used for drawing conclusions based on what is most likely to be true. The video shows facts of dangerous toy, therefore video addresses the truth, not something likely to be true.]Everybody knows how good true Swiss army knives are so we show how bad this knock-off is by tearing it apart by hand. [Phrase "everybody knows" is a typical example of so called "default reasoning", as it is proven, that everybody does not know how good Swiss army knives are. Tearing apart a dangerous toy is not derived from preceding sentence, neither it's in any way its logical consequence.]This was intended to be a false statement. Perhaps I should have used quotes.QED. ["Quod erat demonstrandum". Till that point you haven't yet demonstrate anything.]Argument over. [Till that point you haven't yet present a single valid argument.]My argument was concluding anything about a non-present entity is not warranted.But you can't demonstrate Victorinox quality by demonstrating a competitor's lack of quality. [As already said, video does not addresses (demonstrate) Victorinox quality, but only lack of quality of dangerous toy.]Again, I'm not saying anything about the video's author. I'm talking about members and visitors who view it on this thread, kind of a second level up.You would have attempt to do the exact same tear-down of a comparable Victorinox knife! And you would also have to trust that the person was trying exactly as hard to tear it up. [If someone would like to do a comparison, then the comparison would be needed.If possible, and in this case it is possible, we would make a comparision in lab enviroment (representing the same circumstances for both) using physical laws; in specific case "force", which can be measured, so no need for "trust" anyone.]Not true. Trust is always involved unless you do the tear down yourself and then only you would be able to accept the results without "trusting". I believe that matter, at some level, is made of electrons, protons and neutrons but only because I trust the way science is done.I'm sure we've all seen commercials where the flimsy competitor is easily torn asunder but no matter how hard we try, we just can't seem to get a start tearing up our great product. Not something any of us are likely to do to one of our precious SAKs. [Phrase "I'm sure is a typical example of so called "default reasoning" if the premise or conclusion is not proved, and your opinion it's not proven. And many have seen many attempts of tearing up Vics on Tube - it is proven.]I'm trying to get to the larger issue mentioned in the next paragraphs, not specifically about SAKs. I have Victorinox and Wenger SAKs and Chinese multi-tool knives which I have taken apart and I know which are of true quality. I'm not talking about other videos on YouTube. I'm talking about this particular video and the danger of concluding anything from it except about the quality of the particular knife that was torn apart. You could use inductive reasoning to conclude that these types of Chinese knives are of low quality and not worth much but you couldn't conclude that about every knife made in China. There was a company called Ego Tools that perhaps made a much higher quality SAK knock-off. I would have to trust the people doing the reviews.This "build ourselves up by attacking our opponent" technique is used in almost every political campaign ad. Just remember it could be the pot calling the kettle black.["The pot calling the kettle black." Really? Vic (not even mentioned in video) calls pristine crap-toy ...? How? What?] The "pot calling the kettle black" was meant to be about politicians or Political Action Committees that use negative attacks on the opponent hoping to convert you to the other side (or even some entity trying to sell you something.) Remember they are all politicians, keep your hand on your wallet when they are near.In short, generalizations, false accusations, poor "default reasoning" (i.e. poor opinioning) and so on, but ended by legitimate and wise conclusion of stepping-off and folding up portable soap boxes.
Quote from: WiseDuck on August 19, 2015, 09:06:43 AMI'm gonna assume that most of you guys have seen this one already. A search did not bring it up though. While I think this demonstration is as sad as everyone else I have to bring up a couple of points. As an attack on cheap Chinese knock-offs and a plus for Victorinox quality, this video is a total fail and yet likely highly successful. [More than an attack, it's a demonstration of defense, defense of every person who could come across that dangerous toy-tool. As such, i.e. as defense or even as an "attack" on "enemy" which will hurts your wallet and your body as well, it's an effective educational demonstration of preventing injuries, not fail at all.]I wasn't trying to defend cheap Chinese knock-offs. I just wanted to make the point that it had nothing to say about Victorinox quality.It is an example of what I call default reasoning. [The term "default reasoning" is used for drawing conclusions based on what is most likely to be true. The video shows facts of dangerous toy, therefore video addresses the truth, not something likely to be true.]Everybody knows how good true Swiss army knives are so we show how bad this knock-off is by tearing it apart by hand. [Phrase "everybody knows" is a typical example of so called "default reasoning", as it is proven, that everybody does not know how good Swiss army knives are. Tearing apart a dangerous toy is not derived from preceding sentence, neither it's in any way its logical consequence.]This was intended to be a false statement. Perhaps I should have used quotes.QED. ["Quod erat demonstrandum". Till that point you haven't yet demonstrate anything.]Argument over. [Till that point you haven't yet present a single valid argument.]My argument was concluding anything about a non-present entity is not warranted.But you can't demonstrate Victorinox quality by demonstrating a competitor's lack of quality. [As already said, video does not addresses (demonstrate) Victorinox quality, but only lack of quality of dangerous toy.]Again, I'm not saying anything about the video's author. I'm talking about members and visitors who view it on this thread, kind of a second level up.You would have attempt to do the exact same tear-down of a comparable Victorinox knife! And you would also have to trust that the person was trying exactly as hard to tear it up. [If someone would like to do a comparison, then the comparison would be needed.If possible, and in this case it is possible, we would make a comparision in lab enviroment (representing the same circumstances for both) using physical laws; in specific case "force", which can be measured, so no need for "trust" anyone.]Not true. Trust is always involved unless you do the tear down yourself and then only you would be able to accept the results without "trusting". I believe that matter, at some level, is made of electrons, protons and neutrons but only because I trust the way science is done.I'm sure we've all seen commercials where the flimsy competitor is easily torn asunder but no matter how hard we try, we just can't seem to get a start tearing up our great product. Not something any of us are likely to do to one of our precious SAKs. [Phrase "I'm sure is a typical example of so called "default reasoning" if the premise or conclusion is not proved, and your opinion it's not proven. And many have seen many attempts of tearing up Vics on Tube - it is proven.]I'm trying to get to the larger issue mentioned in the next paragraphs, not specifically about SAKs. I have Victorinox and Wenger SAKs and Chinese multi-tool knives which I have taken apart and I know which are of true quality. I'm not talking about other videos on YouTube. I'm talking about this particular video and the danger of concluding anything from it except about the quality of the particular knife that was torn apart. You could use inductive reasoning to conclude that these types of Chinese knives are of low quality and not worth much but you couldn't conclude that about every knife made in China. There was a company called Ego Tools that perhaps made a much higher quality SAK knock-off. I would have to trust the people doing the reviews.This "build ourselves up by attacking our opponent" technique is used in almost every political campaign ad. Just remember it could be the pot calling the kettle black.["The pot calling the kettle black." Really? Vic (not even mentioned in video) calls pristine crap-toy ...? How? What?] The "pot calling the kettle black" was meant to be about politicians or Political Action Committees that use negative attacks on the opponent hoping to convert you to the other side (or even some entity trying to sell you something.) Remember they are all politicians, keep your hand on your wallet when they are near.
I just reported this item to Victorinox. Fake Swiss Champ, even has the Victorinox shield on both the knife and the box. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B010W3LCNS?m=A2KKJCMNVVNH66&ref_=v_sp_widget_detail_page
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Classic-V-1-Swiss-Army-Knife-for-VeteransDay-Armistice-Day-Stainless-steel-knife-/181928297955?hash=item2a5bc585e3:g:jt4AAOSwQoFWQeIfRare double fish scaler?
Donations
Community Links
