Talk:Cutco
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
|
The quality and method of sales of Cutco knives is somewhat of a controversial issue; however, the article mentions none of this. I'm putting up a dispute of neutraility banner. 24.9.10.235
There is no dispute, you or anyone else are free to add such information as long, of course, that it is cited and NPOV. I am removing the tag, as there is no dispute. Next time, just go ahead and properly add the information (previous edits had no cites nad I stated that that was the reason it was reverted, no other) and if people fight it then there MAY be a dispute but an NPOV tag is a a big deal and is simply not approprate here right now. You seem new, so I am assuming you just didn't know that.Gator1 12:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
^ addressed concerns by adding a more "mild" tag24.9.10.235
What you added was fine. I don't see the need for any tag, there doesn't seem to be any dispute as you were the one who thought there were POV problems with the article and you have added what you think is necessary. This isn't the way to go about this. However, in the name of civility, I won't remove the new tag in the next 48 hours. If no one dispalys a need for the tag within that time, it will be removed after that. Any problem with that?
Next time, just discuss what you see as problems first, without just tagging the article without explaining what you want. This has turned into a big waste of time.Gator1 12:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
First of all I did explain the need for such a tag (read my first comment, it's still right up there!) Secondly, I've edited quite a few articles without the need to cite every single point; anyone who pays attention to Cutco and Vector will know there's quite a bit of disagreement between the quality of both and the efficacy of the latter. Besides, I was in a hurry and was just hoping to get the ball rolling so that better informed and more dedicated people can take it up. I still think my original wording was appropriate without having to cast too much doubt on Cutco for their benefit. Lastly, as indicated by the source I did finally cite (thanks to your insistance, which is good I suppose) there clearly is descent among those who hold opinions about Cutco, and the only thing in this article that reflects that dissent is more or less the one sentence I added (and really, who cares about whether or not the Simpsons parodied them in a forgettable viginette?). Your insistence to remove the tag each time even when I gave my reasons each time followed by your comment of "this has turned into a big waste of time" shows that you truly do not care about the neutrility of the article; in fact call me crazy but now I'm led to believe you are in fact one of those infamous Cutco/Vector Marketing salespeople who are on constant PR alert and ready to snap back at anyone who dare calls their products inferior.
I also took the time to add some further citations. - 24.9.10.235
Wow....anyway... Know what? I like your edits. Just don't need the tag when there's no objection to what you want...call me crazy, call me an agent for Cutco (lol) whatever. Have fun and watch and watch your own POV, you obviously have some here for some reason. Are you actually opposed to removing the tag if if you get what you want and there is no objection? It's ahrd to imagine that you still think the article lacks neutraility when all of YOUR edits and cites are being allowed in at will.....that's just me though...Gator1 12:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I really don't see theneed for any hostility here. I AM AGREEING WITH YOU. Just because you get reverted once (for good reason) doesn't mean that you are allowed to put a tag and then accuse someone of being a Cutco agent. ...SHEESH if I WERE an agent why would I agree with the edit??? In the future, if you see an article that you think needs balance go ahead and add what you want (cite it YES it must be cited, don't give us the "it's so well known it doesn't need to be" line) and discuss it. The tags are only to be used if there is an ongoing discussion anbd people don't agree on an edit or series of edits. This article is not even close to deserving a tag, especially when no one is stopping you from doing what you want. In other words, in the future, don't put up a tag when you just don't get your way, it makes this entire Wikipedia thing much less fun.
Keep up the good work. Unless, for some good reason, you think we still need the tag, I'll just go ahead and remove it, because its not necessary and its marring the article for no good reason.(and that's the only reason..it's not that I'm selling knvies here (see my udser page, do you think I need to (or have time to) sell knives on the side LMAO!!!) If oyu think it should stay, please clearly say so. Readng your posts, I can't seem to find an argument why you think it hsould continue to stay even after making the edits you want....call ME crazy, but I can't imagine why you would thhink it still needs to stay.Gator1 13:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] NPOV
I have removed the NPOV tag after reviewing the history and discussion. It appears that compromise text regarding marketing and quality have been added. Disputes over content such as this normally do not require a POV tag. Are there any outstanding issues that have not resulted in some compromise? - Tεxτurε 19:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Nope and if there are all we have to do is discuss it. Thanks for the help, although it's sad that it took an administrator to have to step in to solve this. I need to go and sell more knives now :)Gator1 19:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
While your tact could still use work I agree with the edits now. Oh, and nice strawmans, BTW. - I would also like to add a note that the compromise text was added after I added the NPOV tag. And I "really" appreciate the fact that you think it's "sad" that an administrator had to intervene. I just want to say that I feel thouroughly insulted in this whole matter thanks to your stubborness and a great deal of my faith in Wikipedia has been lost thanks to people like you, all just because I believe that Wikipedia should be a fair and balanced site - I'm not even trying to paint a bad picture for either Cutco or Vector, just wanted to add that there is a fair amoutn of criticism in the product and the article reflected NONE of this.
That said, I'd appreciate it if you would try and not to have my intelligence insulted any further, and that you very well know where I want you to stick those knives of yours. And I'm sorry if I sound anything but cordial right now, but lastly I want to make it outright clear that I feel outright bullied by you.
Just go the hell away, please. [user: you damn well know who]
I'm sorry you feel that way. I regret nothing I've said or done and I beelive I was totally in the right and that you were absolutely wrong in your approach. You obviously have hard feelings towards me but I want you to know that I have no hard feelings towards you. Have a good day.Gator1 12:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Features
A lifetime guarantee is not unique. Additionally, I believe the handle patent has expired. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Find me another brand of high quality knofe that have a lifetime warranty and I'll agree. The patents might be expired (never heard that before) but it would still be a unique handle unless you can show me a similar one. They seem very unusual to me. The word "unique" isnt all that controversial I thought. Every prduct tries to be different and Cutco is certainly different (for good and bad).
- All Henkel's knives have liftimes. [1]
- Both Henkels and Forschner have lifetime guarantees. (I think those are two of the major international knives. - I worked part-time for two years in a cutlery store.) - Tεxτurε 17:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The CUTCO guarantee does offer more protection. Look up the legal implications of a "lifetime guarantee."
[edit] Problem
This article now reads like an advertising brochure. I used to sell these things so I know the how the demos go. The article NOW has a POV problem. We need to remove a lot of the material as much of it is just commercial gratuitous praise on the product and is not encyclopedic. I will edit it to the way I think the article needs to look. If there is a revert then I will post an NPOV tag and others will have to take a look and help us out. I didn't want to post the tag without first dicussing the issues and putting forth my edits.Gator(talk) 16:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Double D Edge
Although Cutco markets the Double D edge as "not a serrated edge" it is , by definition a serrated edge. It's just a different tooth pattern.
Agreed. I see alot of Cutco marketing style editing going on in this article. It needs to written from a Neutral Point of View. Repeating the Vector marketing lines in the artcile is hardly NPOV.Gator (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Total rubbish - it is not a serrated edge at all.
[edit] Bullets
Is there any particular reason this entire article is written in bullets? It's rather unencyclopedic. -Elmer Clark 00:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article Style
I agree with Elmer Clark and several others. I'm adding a Wikify tag (article needs to be rewritten in one consistent POV and style), as well as a Reads like an Advertisement tag to one of the sections. It looks like a lot of POV work has been done; let's now work on making this a well-planned article. - Bperry7 16 June 2006
[edit] Actual information
Right now the article is still a bit like a brochoure, even though there is some negative information in it. I don't want to get into original research, but there are some facts about these knives I don't see discussed which would help to explain why these knives perform well in demos (and even in general) but are not the choise of professionals:
- Hardness -- the knives are hard. The material is harder than that of Wusthoff (I can scratch my Wusthoff with my Cutco but not the other way around; I can scratch both with tungsten carbide, of course)
- The result of this is that they hold their edge very well, but are less user-servicable. This also explains why a demoer can cut through leather when a regular kitchen knife can't -- a regular kitchen knife wasn't designed to. If a kitchen knife should be designed to do this is another question. You could just make a knife out of tungsten carbide, but it would probably be expensive.
- Balance -- a Cutco chef's knife isn't balanced well; the center of mass should be where the handle meets the blade; instead it is down the blade a bit.
- Blade shape -- The hollow-ground blade is great for slicing things thin, but gets wedged in squash, for example, whereas a traditional wedge shape has a smaller effective angle.
- Grip -- The handles are designed for the way most people hold knives but is unsutable for a grip that many professionals and hobbiests prefer, grabing the bolster, and pinching the blade itself, shown here:[2]. The cutco blade is to shoort to facilitate this.
In short, I don't disagree with Cutco that their edges outlast those of other high-end knives -- I've seen it, it's impressive -- but for general-purpose cutting, the knives have serious design shortcomings. The question is: can this information be made non-original-research and neutral point of view? —Ben FrantzDale 19:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sales information
Sales representatives get a binder to show to customers, and in it is a lot of info. If someone compares this info with some reliable info online, a lot of it is unverifiable. One thing I remember was when they compared it to Henckels and said it was cheaper, but it isn't. One thing I think the article is wrong in saying is that Cutco knives are serrated. They aren't really, since the point of the Double-D edge is that it has the benefits of both serrated and straight edge knives; keeping the clean cut of straight edges and keeping the sharpness that serrated knives have. 128.6.176.12 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'd love to see a verification of sales information. As for Double-D, though, I'm not convinced. I would be convinced if someone could explain in detail how a Double-D edge avoids scuffing the cut. I suppose using a Double-D and a regular serrated knife on a homogenious object (e.g., a squash). —Ben FrantzDale 20:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] cleanup
I modified the references and corrected the link to the handle designer Thomas Lamb. Thomas W. Lamb was a theater architect. For what it's worth, i don't thnk the article is NPOV. talking about the quality of the product is inevitably going to be POV. You just have to talk about what they sell, how much of it they sell, who buys it, and who sells it. I think the article covers that. Richardjames444 00:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Some products not made in the US
I worked for Vector marketing a few moths ago and while I was there we were all told that the ice cream scoop and the flatware were made outside the US. The metal was made the US but then they were shipped to Olean, NY and the handles were attached. I was able to find a site that also says this and I have added it as a citation Gimpy530
