Wenger or Victorinox

[firiki]

What say you all ??

In brief, 'cause I have to go... First of all, ground breaking discoveries and inventions don't happen every day but rather once or twice in a century.

In my opinion Wenger tried to be "fun", which is a key marketing notion since the '60s. In doing so they came up with a lot of ideas that, ultimately, were implemented poorly. To name a few:

- Evo scales, they make the knife unnecessarily bulky and thus not really appealling.

- Soft Grip scales, I love them. I'm not sure they're durable though.

- That ghastly padlock on their 85mm knives? Totally unnecessary for me. I can see Wenger reaching out to the non-knife people of the world with that padlock but I think doing so with the push-button liner lock instead would be better.

- Porsche design series, I believe it was supposed to contain ruthenium and it turned out it didn't?

- Generally, I don't buy something because it says, for example "Camel Trophy", on it but I think Wenger tried to boost sales this way. I wonder how much these collaboration fees cost Wenger?

- Faulty quality control from concept to realisation. Take the wrench, for example...


Question, niche products without adequate niche buyers pool = ?

All in all, I think Wenger tried to differ from Victorinox by emphasising on the idea of a (prestigious) multivalent SAK instead of a practical, truly multivalent one. I hope this makes sense.

[magentus]

What say you all ??

In brief, 'cause I have to go... First of all, ground breaking discoveries and inventions don't happen every day but rather once or twice in a century.

In my opinion Wenger tried to be "fun", which is a key marketing notion since the '60s. In doing so they came up with a lot of ideas that, ultimately, were implemented poorly. To name a few:

- Evo scales, they make the knife unnecessarily bulky and thus not really appealling.

- Soft Grip scales, I love them. I'm not sure they're durable though.

- That ghastly padlock on their 85mm knives? Totally unnecessary for me. I can see Wenger reaching out to the non-knife people of the world with that padlock but I think doing so with the push-button liner lock instead would be better.

- Porsche design series, I believe it was supposed to contain ruthenium and it turned out it didn't?

- Generally, I don't buy something because it says, for example "Camel Trophy", on it but I think Wenger tried to boost sales this way. I wonder how much these collaboration fees cost Wenger?

- Faulty quality control from concept to realisation. Take the wrench, for example...


Question, niche products without adequate niche buyers pool = ?

All in all, I think Wenger tried to differ from Victorinox by emphasising on the idea of a (prestigious) multivalent SAK instead of a practical, truly multivalent one. I hope this makes sense.

camel trophy?

[firiki]

camel trophy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel_Trophy

[Etherealicer]

I would agree.  As innovative doesn't necessarily mean successful.  This may have been part of the downfall of Wenger; not concentrating on the mass market.

Yes and no. For an innovation it does not have to be commercially successful, but it should work at least in its niche.

I worked with a lot of guys in GC, not one of them used a SGT.
I also know a lot of guys who are watchmakers, most of them have a Minathor, none of them uses it. Why? because you don't wan't to loose one of those tiny screws, so you never do watch-work on the go. So, is cool? Yes! Must have? Yes! Innovative? No, as it does not work for its intended market!

I mean sure, having a wrench in your blade like with the titanium-line is new and unique but innovative? Does anyone even want that?

Personally, I feel that a lot of those Wenger niche products don't work. Maybe with the exception of the reed knife.
So, like the Giant, their only function is collecting dust

New colors, or sizes are not an innovation.

And what about the Evo-scales. Innovative to introduce ergonomics to SAKs? Are they really more ergonomical or just weirdly shaped? It works really poorly if you use any tool other than the blade, worse on a tool that is in the opposite direction, and it adds bulk. To me this is a failure not an innovation, but some people feel more comfortable with evo-scales so yes, they are innovative, even if just barely.



So, are we talking innovations as a toy/collectible manufacturer or innovations as a TOOL manufacturer?

For me, in the SAK market, the CT-bit-holder is the last great innovation. Why? It works, is super useful without being more bulky than a dedicated tool would be.
That at least is my take.

[kosmo]

I would agree.  As innovative doesn't necessarily mean successful.  This may have been part of the downfall of Wenger; not concentrating on the mass market.

Yes and no. For an innovation it does not have to be commercially successful, but it should work at least in its niche.

I worked with a lot of guys in GC, not one of them used a SGT.
I also know a lot of guys who are watchmakers, most of them have a Minathor, none of them uses it. Why? because you don't wan't to loose one of those tiny screws, so you never do watch-work on the go. So, is cool? Yes! Must have? Yes! Innovative? No, as it does not work for its intended market!

I mean sure, having a wrench in your blade like with the titanium-line is new and unique but innovative? Does anyone even want that?

Personally, I feel that a lot of those Wenger niche products don't work. Maybe with the exception of the reed knife.
So, like the Giant, their only function is collecting dust

New colors, or sizes are not an innovation.

And what about the Evo-scales. Innovative to introduce ergonomics to SAKs? Are they really more ergonomical or just weirdly shaped? It works really poorly if you use any tool other than the blade, worse on a tool that is in the opposite direction, and it adds bulk. To me this is a failure not an innovation, but some people feel more comfortable with evo-scales so yes, they are innovative, even if just barely.



So, are we talking innovations as a toy/collectible manufacturer or innovations as a TOOL manufacturer?

For me, in the SAK market, the CT-bit-holder is the last great innovation. Why? It works, is super useful without being more bulky than a dedicated tool would be.
That at least is my take.

The original intent of this thread was comparing Wenger and Victorinox; not to say Wenger is the best thing since sliced bread.

Wenger may not have been successful, but they were innovated in spending time and engineering on knifes and individual tools that are unique (compared to Victorinox's tools offered.)  They may not have been successful in the long run, but this is not a requirement for innovation.  Look at the individual tools that Wenger produced, in which Victorinox has offered no alternative.  Now look the other way around.  How many individual tools has Victorinox offered that Wenger hasn't offered.  Victorinox may have been better off commercially not spending time and money developing these kinds of tools and instead focusing on sales of knives including the most popular knife, the 58mm in all its assorted colors and designs.  But I don't see as much innovation coming from Victorinox.

That being said.  As I iniitally wrote.  I prefer Victorinox products to Wenger.  Not on innovation, but quality.  Or at least perceived quality.

And yes, I would like the option of a locking blade on Victorinox 91mm and 84mm knives.  And while they are at it, how about a locking blade for the saw blade.  It is the one blade I've had trouble with flipping on me.

[Etherealicer]

[...]

I think that I have covered in my first post.
Focus on what you need and what the biggest differences are between Vic and Wenger.

This was more a reply to Huntsman (also you claim Wenger to be more innovative in your first post, guess that is what got it started, so you can't even blame kirky )

[kosmo]

We can always blame Kirky.  He doesn't have to be guilty.