Using photos is not the best way to formulate any strong opinion, but some times that is all we have. My detractors for the most part have primarily used photos to form their opinion, theories, etc. That puts them at a disadvantage no doubt, an in my opinion, to use the words of one of the detractors, marginalizes their position. That is through no fault of mine, they just have not handled many sheaths.

I am purposely omitting at this time the backs of the sheaths but will add them after some folks get a chance to study the fronts. I think it is clouding the issue for some folks that only see a stamp orientation or a number font style to make an "easy" determination as a substitute for experience.

So here we go.

The list below are the basic things required to "build" a sheath. In other words like the chassis/body of a car. It is pretty much the same from car to car down the assembly line. There is a certain degree of uniformity expected. The chassis/body and some other items are not just changed because a guy on the factory floor decided to change it.

Other items can change with say, model year or options. In most manufacturing undertakings, these things go through a process of review and trial prior to change. They don't change on the factory floor.

Now you will have a different chassis/body with different manufacturers like Ford and Chevy, but they perform the same function. I see the same with the sheath makers dating all the way back to Clarence Moore.

That being said, the same principals can be used for the sheaths of discussion. Some items are the chassis, while other items like stamp orientation, keeper snap location, and model and/or length font are not the critical assembly line items. Those items while often somewhat consistent with manufacturers, they can be changed easily.

Below is a list of the "chassis" of the sheath.
things to look for:

1) Overall shape of the sheath(die cut covers 1,2,3,6)
2) Toe shape
3) throat shape
4) leather finish(harder by photo only)
5] stitching
6) belt loop width and contour

You have seen this photo numerous times and it still seems to escape a few that view it when trying to determine the origin of a sheath. If you don't even have an idea what you are looking at, then it is not as easy. You cannot "learn" it with photos alone as some attempt to do. Like with anything else, time invested says volumes. It will be presented in two arrangements, which should make it relatively easy for viewers to discern differences with side by side comparisons. It shows the "three" makers - Heiser, HKL, and Johnson.

Note that Heiser & HKL are virtually the same sheath. The third brown button sheath is from the same maker as the baby dot sheath which we know is a Johnson. The overall shape of the sheath to include the toe, throat, and belt loop width is the same. Stamps, whether logo, orientation, or whatever don't mean that much.

Here is the second round, photos courtesy of Ron Mathews. This photo shows Heiser, HKL, and Johnson. L to R Johnson - Johnson - HKL - Johnson - Johnson - Heiser.

Note that two of the Johnson made sheaths have center keeper snap location and are brown buttons, contrary to the "theory" of the opposing camp.

With rear of sheaths photo added, again the differences between Heiser/HKL and Johnson are clear. Stitching, butterfly, belt loop width. Notice also that the two Johnson made sheaths to the left have west facing logo stamps and serif numbers designating model/length, again contrary to the opposing camp. Note the two Johnson to right are without model/length stamps and have edge keeper snap location.

Ron's own assessment:



I agree except I think third from left is HKL

round 3 shows one sheath for sure, second from bottom, I believe and the owner believes is a Johnson.

Here again we see district differences between the makers including the token Stockman throw in at the bottom. The three sheaths in the middle, Heiser, HKL, Heiser, are virtually identical. The sheath second from the bottom, the Johnson, is not close. The top sheath I would like to see in person but I am leaning heavily towards HKL.

I think some will find the following quote interesting referencing the top photo prior to the backs being posted:



So Ron, using his experience and not depending on a stamp orientation and apparently discounting the snap location, initially called it correctly. I don't know why he went astray and and went against his gut to champion the cause that proved incorrect.

And Tune picking the sheaths correctly as did Ron using the front view only, and upon seeing the photo of the back he comments:



So two knowledgeable guys using the front of the sheaths only pick correctly. That is what I am talking about relative to having seen and handled sheaths and how important that is in becoming proficient in identifying them.

round 4. These sheaths have the advantage of the stones shown with them. This photo also give a great comparison of the "three" makers L to R - Johnson, HKL, and Hesier. This photo so clearly shows the differences in the sheaths that I believe it is impossible not to see them. The sheath on the left bares little resemblance for all practical purposes, using the list "things to look for" above, to the other two which are virtually the same.

The differences in the rear photo are so obvious here, not a contest. Note west facing logo and serif numbers on Johnson sheath at left, contrary to the other camp.

round 5, clearly from the same maker - Heiser & HKL - but a few years apart. Good view of stitching here.

You will also notice maybe a slight decline in fit and finish compared to Heiser's hey day which was brought up by Gary Clinton in another thread.

This photo shows the HKL #1 sheath with the west facing stamp and also shows the Heiser style butterfly and serif number stamps.

round 6: this is one that caused a few problems for the detractors. This is a Johnson sheath with a center snap baby dot. Although it has been determined Heiser (not HKL) did use the same style (not manufacturer) of snap on early holsters and the occasional "generic" knife sheath, it was determined by Ron Mathews that the snap was larger than the Johnson variety and when seen often had the Heiser logo on it. That would be predominantly on holsters as I do not believe more than one or two knife sheaths have been shown with the style of snap, and I believe they were of pre-war or WWII vintage.

Don't really need to add much here relative to the rear photo.

round 7: Photos are not good, and this one is up for commentary. This is one I have not had in hand, so I am at the same disadvantage as anyone else. Please note the location of the baby dot snap and the horizontal RMK stamp on the back of the sheath. It also looks like it could have non-serif numbers. This one must be making a few heads spin. Curious to see how this one is explained.

Rear of sheath photos have been added with commentary to all of the posts except the first one. I need to get the rear photos grouped into one to make viewing a bit easier. I still have more photos to go through time permitting.

I will post a additional commentary in the original post after folks have had some time to review.

One more you have heard that time and again just doesn't exist, but ..............we have an EAST facing stamp and serif numbers. This is an example of what one might find if they dig a bit.

Joe,

Thanks for your time and effort putting this thread together. I have few random questions.

1) What are your thoughts on the Model 12 sheath and why did you use it as an example? To me, it looks like a typical, early RBJ. The snap location doesn't say much to me because it's not on the side and it's not centered either. The horizontal stamp and new style numbers was common on a RBJ Model 12 sheath.

2) What are the distinctions between Heiser and HKL?

3) Regarding the Binkley hunter, is it common to see number stamps placed so high near the fold of the belt loop? It appears the 3 has a flat top, but it is quite distorted and off center - almost as if it was added after the sheath was assembled.

4) Any thoughts on the unusual buttcap on the Binkley hunter?