Quality of Today's SAKs vs. Older Models

[Saluki]

I am relatively new to the world of SAK's, and have a question I have been wondering for awhile.  I've read about some of the design changes that have taken place over time, including the move to thinner blade stock and hollow cellidor handles.  Some of these changes may have been made primarily for cost cutting purposes.

I recently purchased a 1960's Standard, and that knife does feel a little more sturdy due to the thicker blade and denser handles.  My gut reaction is to always associate more material (thicker blade, etc.), with better longevity and durability.  However, I realize that quality is a lot more complex than that.  Improvements in materials, more precise manufacturing processes, etc. can sometimes increase strength and durability while reducing the amount of materials used.  I have read a couple of books on SAKs, and both talked about advancements in Victorinox steel throughout the years.  One mentioned the reduced tang thickness was made possible by improvements in metallurgy.

For those of you that have had long term experience using both old and new SAKs, how would you rate the quality of today's SAKs vs those of previous generations.  By "quality", I am primarily interested in overall fit and finish, long term durability, and edge holding ability.

Just curious what the thoughts and perceptions are.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cbl51]

Yes, I have noticed the cost cutting steps they made, and I guess I wasn't happy. But they still seem to be as well made as ever. The QA on them is outstanding, and Victorinox is still the only knife I will buy sight unseen. Yes the blades are a bit thinner, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. If you look at the knife as a cutting tool, the thinner blade will cut better. How thin are most paring knife blades? For that matter, how think is the blade on a Stanley utility knife that sees heavy duty  use on construction sights?

I think that while the new ones are lighter, and designed to be cheaper to produce, I feel that because of the outstanding engineering of Victorinox that the real quality of the SAK has not been compromised. It will still stand up to whatever it may have stood up to before the changes. And I do like light weight. As a life long backpacker, I've went to some lengths in the past to reduce weight of carried items.

I sure would see Victorinox cut a few corners than see them go out. It's a vicious competitive market out there, and a company has to sometimes figure a way to stay in the game.

[Styerman]

I've owned SAK's since 1963 . I have seen changes ( ie:brass to alum. spacers ) , these may have saved time or labour , but overall quality hasn't been effected .

Chris

[eTripper]

Generally speaking, the 'quality' of older-versions of popular items are much more robust, with greater attention to 'production values'.  As mentioned, production shortcuts are a 'reality' in today's world.  One main reason is to stay competitive with others in the crowded marketplace.  If strict quality is still maintained:  no problem!  A better contemporary question would be:  Which is better:  Victorinox, or Wenger?  When they were 'separate concerns' Victorinox was the undisputed champion.  Since, both brands are now owned by the same iconic company, Wenger has gotten immensely better IMHO.  The scissor implement on the Wenger is a little inferior to the Vic's.  I carry both brands indiscriminately, without signifcant issues.  Victorinox also leads in the area of cosmetics, with more variations in the knife scales.   

[Luna Knife]

The grooved corkscrew was probably stronger than todays