The older you'll get... the more minimal the tool

[powernoodle]

Minimalist does not necessary equate to "doesn't carry much".  For me it means finding the smallests item that still provides adequate utility.  And by carrying smallish items, I can carry more of them.

I know that this thread is centered on minimal SAKs and not necessarily minimalist EDC generally, but here's a snapshot of what minimalism looks like for me.  Everything is pretty thin and/or light weight, but does everything required.

[Aloha]

I never use the scissors and tend to avoid SAK models with them.

This is interesting.  I think its also the first time I've read this on MTo  .  This is what I was referring to when I say its fascinating why and what people carry.

@Powernoodle.  I guess you say I'm someone who understood "minimalist" to mean "doesn't carry much" or carries a minimal amount.  I like your thinking very much, smaller tools in your case are very effective.   

[cbl51]

Minimalist does not necessary equate to "doesn't carry much".  For me it means finding the smallests item that still provides adequate utility.  And by carrying smallish items, I can carry more of them.

That's what I love about maximum minimalism. It's the reduction of an item to the smallest size and yet retain function for what it was designed to do. Lke a mini Bic vs a full size lighter. Or using a small monocular vs a small binocular. A golf pencil in the pocket for notes instead of a full size pen. Or a Case peanut size pocket knife instead of a full size barlow or stockman.

How small can an item be shrunk and still function?

And if you can get by with a smaller item, then you can carry backup more easily. Like the old saying "two is one, and one is none."

[Aloha]

Minimalist does not necessary equate to "doesn't carry much".  For me it means finding the smallests item that still provides adequate utility.  And by carrying smallish items, I can carry more of them.

That's what I love about maximum minimalism. It's the reduction of an item to the smallest size and yet retain function for what it was designed to do. Lke a mini Bic vs a full size lighter. Or using a small monocular vs a small binocular. A golf pencil in the pocket for notes instead of a full size pen. Or a Case peanut size pocket knife instead of a full size barlow or stockman.

How small can an item be shrunk and still function?

And if you can get by with a smaller item, then you can carry backup more easily. Like the old saying "two is one, and one is none."

 

@powernoodle, I meant to say in my previous post, "I guess one can say".  Anyway I had understood minimalism to me small for the sake of small or minimal as it were.  I totally get and love the ideas both you and cbl51 bring forward. 

[cbl51]

Minimalist does not necessary equate to "doesn't carry much".  For me it means finding the smallests item that still provides adequate utility.  And by carrying smallish items, I can carry more of them.

That's what I love about maximum minimalism. It's the reduction of an item to the smallest size and yet retain function for what it was designed to do. Lke a mini Bic vs a full size lighter. Or using a small monocular vs a small binocular. A golf pencil in the pocket for notes instead of a full size pen. Or a Case peanut size pocket knife instead of a full size barlow or stockman.

How small can an item be shrunk and still function?

And if you can get by with a smaller item, then you can carry backup more easily. Like the old saying "two is one, and one is none."

 

@powernoodle, I meant to say in my previous post, "I guess one can say".  Anyway I had understood minimalism to me small for the sake of small or minimal as it were.  I totally get and love the ideas both you and cbl51 bring forward.

Also, if an item is very small, chances are more likely you will carry it and have it with you when you need it. A small compass hardly bigger than a nickel is better than no compass at all, or a very small pistol better than a large pistol that will be left at home.


The monocular, mini revolver, and compass can all fit in one jeans pocket if need be.

[Aloha]

  points very well taken. 

[ducttapetech]

Minimalist does not necessary equate to "doesn't carry much".  For me it means finding the smallests item that still provides adequate utility.  And by carrying smallish items, I can carry more of them.

That's what I love about maximum minimalism. It's the reduction of an item to the smallest size and yet retain function for what it was designed to do. Lke a mini Bic vs a full size lighter. Or using a small monocular vs a small binocular. A golf pencil in the pocket for notes instead of a full size pen. Or a Case peanut size pocket knife instead of a full size barlow or stockman.

How small can an item be shrunk and still function?

And if you can get by with a smaller item, then you can carry backup more easily. Like the old saying "two is one, and one is none."

Maximum Minimalism, that is a SOSAK and Pwork term. I have not heard that in a long time.
I kinda like the idea of it, but has yet to ever work out for me. I tend to be a "bigger is better".

[SAK Guy]

I swing between extremes.....

1) Older and wiser which doesn't always equate to carrying less (I know what I'm likely to need that day).

2) Older and pissed off which does (I say screw it, grab an ALOX or 2-3  layer cellidor and go with it).

3) Older and fatalistic (Grab a Trail Guide, if it's what I need, so be it).

[shark_za]

You can never go wrong with a J Frame.

I've found it's not so much age as environment.

I am one of those tempted by the ease of the J on occasion. 
But I live in a violent country and I am head of security for the No.1 family.
I must carry my G23/27 more.

I do find a two layer SAK as ideal for day to day pocket carry.  Leatherman in my bag or car and a Spydie clipped to my pocket and I'm minimal but handy.

[Sheradin]

Lots of good points to ponder in this thread. Thanks for the good reading!   

[raistlin65]

I swing between extremes.....

1) Older and wiser which doesn't always equate to carrying less (I know what I'm likely to need that day).

2) Older and pissed off which does (I say screw it, grab an ALOX or 2-3  layer cellidor and go with it).

3) Older and fatalistic (Grab a Trail Guide, if it's what I need, so be it).

You forgot:

4) Older, with a much larger SAK collection, and you can't resist carrying many of them at some point or another. 

[SAK Guy]

I swing between extremes.....

1) Older and wiser which doesn't always equate to carrying less (I know what I'm likely to need that day).

2) Older and pissed off which does (I say screw it, grab an ALOX or 2-3  layer cellidor and go with it).

3) Older and fatalistic (Grab a Trail Guide, if it's what I need, so be it).

You forgot:

4) Older, with a much larger SAK collection, and you can't resist carrying many of them at some point or another. 

   

[raistlin65]

I swing between extremes.....

1) Older and wiser which doesn't always equate to carrying less (I know what I'm likely to need that day).

2) Older and pissed off which does (I say screw it, grab an ALOX or 2-3  layer cellidor and go with it).

3) Older and fatalistic (Grab a Trail Guide, if it's what I need, so be it).

You forgot:

4) Older, with a much larger SAK collection, and you can't resist carrying many of them at some point or another. 

   

So would you agree? Number 4 should have been number 1 in the list, assuming they were ranked in order of what influences you the most in EDC choice?

[SAK Guy]

I swing between extremes.....

1) Older and wiser which doesn't always equate to carrying less (I know what I'm likely to need that day).

2) Older and pissed off which does (I say screw it, grab an ALOX or 2-3  layer cellidor and go with it).

3) Older and fatalistic (Grab a Trail Guide, if it's what I need, so be it).

You forgot:

4) Older, with a much larger SAK collection, and you can't resist carrying many of them at some point or another. 

   

So would you agree? Number 4 should have been number 1 in the list, assuming they were ranked in order of what influences you the most in EDC choice?

Yeah, probably. 

[twiliter]

Yep, I'm a number 4.

Unless the Beatles are playing, then it's Number 9. 

Good 1 Raistlin!