Re: Your Matching Pair...

Thanks, Tune!

Note: You may want to reconsider the "Johnson" sheath discription on that Model 1. These are photos from a fairly recent e-bay auction of the estate of an old Heiser employee:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-4-Randal...=item3f2252be35




Here is the auction text so it's saved for posterity:

4 Randall Knife Sheaths. 1-7,1-8,12-9,15-5 1/2. All Rough Back. New Condition.All are missing a Snap. AND the 15 5 1/2 sheath has torn stitching on the Sharpener Pouch. See Photos. The Story: Came from a Estate of a Leather Worker whom worked at "Heiser Saddle Co."in Denver. It was a great Sale ,Besides Leather,Tools,Heiser Stamps..... There was quite a few Saleman Samples. Included were these Randall Sheaths. You will Notice all are marked with "SAMPLE" in red ink. I was unable to remove ink .Maybe you will be more Successfull or Maybe Black Dye? Which Ever, I hope someone has a use for these Sheaths.

I saw that auction Ron.... Joe and I discussed a bit. It adds more weight to the first "Randall" stamped sheathes being Heisers, not Johnsons.

I have always worked under the assumption that anything stamped "Randall" was a Johnson, but ......

IMO that auction answered one of the most debated questions about the history of Randall Made knives. A watershed event!

Ron and Mitchell

Thank you both to the sheath stamping lesson. I really enjoy learning things like that. Great information.

All of the knives you both displayed are great. Ron that Low S mini 3 is superb.

Here is a pair with a story of some sort....mine is just a guess. The model #2 was made 1955 to 1956 based on the sheath. (narrow stone flap, horizontal keeper strap). The model #1 was very early 1960's. Again, because of the sheath. It's a Johnson, with a horizontal stamp. These were turned vertical very quickly after production began.

Both knives have the name etch "Mac Bowen"

The problem is, black micarta was not available when either of these knives were originally made.

I assume Mac had both of these knives rehandled by the shop between 1965 and 1970. The handles may have been damaged, or maybe he just wanted a matched pair... either way, they are pretty cool.

Here is a case looking at Tune's sheaths that is contrary to what Ron is stating as definitive, and supports Tune's original opinion. Look at the front of the #1 sheath, it has the appearance of a Heiser. Look at the back, not at all. Compared to the #2 sheath, the stitching is completely different (a la Johnson) and obviously done on a different machine. The 'butterfly" is also markedly different than the known Heiser.

While my opinion has morphed about some of these sheaths that are stamped with the RMK logo and that may be Heiser sheaths, no one knows for sure how it came about if true. I have always been told that no sheaths were stamped with a logo at the Randall shop as it remains to this day. So, if in fact some if not all of these sheaths in question are actually Hesier's but stamped with the RMK logo, the only answer would be that Bo sent a stamp out to the "company" that was no longer H.H. Heiser, but a second acquisition of the company in a decade. The question is, did he?

Read more here:

http://www.rmkcollector.com/index.php?cID=265

The bottom line as I have maintained for years, for my collecting purposes if it has a RMK logo stamp, it is a Johnson.

Great work and investigating Joe. You always come up with some interesting info.

Great work and investigating Joe. You always come up with some interesting info.

Joe,

What I alledged as definitive (IMO) is that both Heiser and Johnson produced sheaths stamped with Randall logos. I just don't see how a reasonable person can come to any other conclusion after seeing that auction. In the case of Tune's Model 1 sheath, I just said he may want to reconsider his opinion! The difficult thing moving forward is how to tell the two manufacturers apart. I'm not sold on the somewhat subjective "Johnson" or "non Heiser" attributes you assigned to Tune's Model 1 sheath as it differs from his Model 2 sheath. There were "years" between the time his Model 2 sheath and Model 1 sheaths were made. The horizontal vs. vertical keeper is a good indication of this. There were changes that took place within Heiser over the years that we are all aware of or can reasonable conclude: Changes in ownership, overall quality, personnel, styles, grades of leather, coloration and of course replacement of patterns and sewing machines. It's not going to be as easy as you think.

Ron I agree with all that's been said here and I too believe this auction has given some proof to the stamping issue. It seems Joe on the one hand believes that there were Heisers marked with the Randall Stamp but it seems he wouldn't bet his life on it. I agree. It seems fairly obvious on the one hand but then again.....well maybe not so obvious. It sure is interesting to learn all this.
Joe does some outstanding investigating as you do. There is a great.....great book out there that would be the definitive book on Randall's that you too could collaborate on. I would love to see it.
As for me when I find a sheath like we are talking about it will be one or the other. I mean they did have Randall Stamps at this auction. Bo must have sent them to em. Anyway neat stuff!

I spoke (email) to the person selling this group of sheaths in question. He said that there was nothing other than these sheaths relative to RMK, no documentation, no stamp, and no records or correspondence.

While I don't disagree with Ron's position, I also don't agree, not 100%. That does not mean Ron is wrong, just that I would like some definitive evidence, i.e. some correspondence between Bo and "Heiser", an entry in a journal stating he may have sent them a stamp, or maybe that he had at least two stamps made on his initial order. Perhaps the main point is exactly what was the impetus for Bo to have a stamp made in the first place? Specifically to send to Heiser or for a local sheath maker, particularly knowing he had been looking for a local maker for some time. Which is more plausible? It would seem based on the auction sheaths that Heiser did have a stamp, but maybe not.

One thing I do question is the assumption of use of different machines by Heiser. Speaking with Greg, it seems there were not many makers of machines, and Heiser sheaths had been very consistent in their stitching indicative of consistency of the machine(s) used. But again like some of the things listed by Ron in his most recent post, circumstances change, and with the sale or acquisition of Heiser twice in the decade (1950's) it is possible that a machine from a different manufacturer was added to the line. It could also be something as simple as a personnel change.

I maintain though that we really only see a real contrast when Maurice Johnson comes on the scene.

Another thing I was thinking about is why did this "Heiser" employee have sample sheaths. IIRC, I thought there was a mention the fellow was a salesman, but whatever it was, why would he have samples? The only company that would need samples would presumably be RMK.

What would they be samples for? The sheath itself which was a known entity, for the logo stamp only?

That is a really good question.

Joe,

According to the seller, the estate was of a leather worker. I wouldn't expect a leather worker to have access to, or have retained documentation between Bo and Heiser relating to the Randall stamp. If I put myself in Bo's shoes, I'd much rather have my brand on the sheath as opposed to Heiser's. It could very well be that the last change of Heiser ownership (The Keyston Brothers) finally consented to a request that Bo had made for decades. It's also likely that Bo sent Heiser the stamp as opposed to sending Heiser a drawing of the stamp. In that case, Bo would have asked for the stamp back when he discontinued doing business with them.

When Gaddis started researching Bo's files for his book in 1985, there was almost 50 years of documentation that he had available to him to sort through. Despite the length of time he spent at the shop, he couldn't get to everything. If he missed the correspondence from Bo to Heiser regarding the stamp, IMO the chances that Gary or even Jason will at some time go back through those records to look for the correspondence that you need for definitive proof is pretty slim (If those records even excist now). We have to go with what we have.

With regard to distinguishing the differences between a Heiser sheath and a Johnson sheath with the Randall stamp: We can use the sheaths in the auction as the final product that Heiser produced for Bo. But what Johnson sheaths do we to use to compare? It doesn't make sense to use the horizontal logo sheaths as there has been a consensus that these came before the vertical, and the sheaths in this auction have both positions! From that one data point, one could "almost" say that any sheath with a brown button and a horizontal sheath was likely a Heiser. Since it seems that both Heiser and Johnson produced brown button sheaths with vertical logos, it follows that you can't use these for comparison either. Therefore, the best Johnson comparsion against these Heiser sheaths would be tight stitched roughback baby dot sheaths. Even this comparison wouldn't be 100% accurate as Johnson's quality naturally improved over time. As I said, this ain't going to be easy.

Ron -

I have never heard this mentioned in any conversation relative to the marking on RMK supplied sheaths - "a request that Bo had made for decades". When and where did you hear this?

I will repeat one of the key questions, that being what was the impetus for Bo to get a RMK logo stamp in the first place? Because he didn't like the current "Heiser" logo or because he found a local maker.

From the auction description:

4 Randall Knife Sheaths. 1-7,1-8,12-9,15-5 1/2. All Rough Back. New Condition.All are missing a Snap. AND the 15 5 1/2 sheath has torn stitching on the Sharpener Pouch. See Photos.

The Story: Came from a Estate of a Leather Worker whom worked at "Heiser Saddle Co."in Denver. It was a great Sale ,Besides Leather,Tools,Heiser Stamps..... There was quite a few Saleman Samples. Included were these Randall Sheaths. You will Notice all are marked with "SAMPLE" in red ink. I was unable to remove ink .Maybe you will be more Successfull or Maybe Black Dye? Which Ever, I hope someone has a use for these Sheaths.

My questions to the seller:

Hello -

You mention in your auction that there were "Heiser Stamps" in the estate sale. Do you recall an "Randall Made" stamp(s) as on these sheaths you are selling? Any type of correspondence from Randall Made knives? Anything that you can recall about these sheaths? Were they listed as sales samples in the estate sale?

thanks

His response:

In Bla Bla Discription.I was just relaying Where and When I came across these sheaths. I dont Collect Knives.I'm More into Colorao Stuff. With that said.
The Family didn't know what they had. I'm surprised they didn't just throw everthing away. I didn't see any Randall Stamps or Literature. And dont know why these were mixed in with the Heiser Stuff. Were Heiser and Randall Connected in some way?? Sorry i cant help you more.

S

Comments?

Joe,

I prefaced my comment about Gary's request by saying "If I put myself in Bo's shoes, I'd much rather have my brand on the sheath as opposed to Heiser's". How natural is that?

Regarding your earlier questions:



I agree: I can't think of a scenario other than those samples being for Bo. Let me give you a plausable explanation: Bo sends the stamp to Heiser and asks for samples. The Heiser sales guy tells our leather worker friend to "Make up some different Randall sheaths with the new Randall stamp we just received". Our friend makes ~ 10 sheaths and lets the sales guy know. The sales guy says "I only need about a half dozen", so our friend sits on the remainder until the operation shuts down and brings them home along with a lot of other miscellanous Heiser stuff. Easily believable!

Ronnie,

If Joe wasn't so hard headed.................

Gary's request?

When Bo had the stamp made, I have to believe he was familiar with the design and what it looked like, presumably when used on a piece of leather. I find it unlikely as well as unnecessary that "Heiser" would have to make complete sheaths to send to Bo solely to check on the appearance of the logo stamp. Plus, two of the four in the auction had vertical orientation stamps, obviously later than the first RMK logo stamped sheaths and beyond the "sample" phase, IF (note the big if) there was one.

There are just some things that don't add up.

How did the order of the posts get screwed up?

Joe,

I merged the posts from the "Pairs" thread in the photo forum.... I felt this discussion would be better in this forum.

Sorry for the confusion, but I think everyone gets it......

Each model sheath has a different available area upon which to stamp a logo. Some large and some small. A natural preferance would be horizontal as the sheath is in a naturally perpindicular state. However, some models just don't have the room, and a horizontal stamp would either be prohibitive or have so little margin that it wouldn't be prudent to assume the guy who does the stamping to center the stamp perfectly. If I was Bo, I would have liked to see how the stamps fit each model. This of course is all speculation. I'm just trying to come up with scenarios that align with the evidence we have. I'd like to hear yours.

I wouldn't think it was a conscious thought other than like you said, some don't fit horizontally, i.e. model 8 pancake style. There would only be a couple of sheaths for smaller models that would have fallen into the "don't fit horizontally" category. Me and Hunt had this same conversation years ago.

In any case, I doubt Bo would have had made a decision based solely on appearance, if in fact he was involved at all, but based on uniformity and efficiency.

I think there may be others that are tight besides just a few of the smaller models. I'll go back and see what I can come up with when I have some time.

I'd still like to hear a scenario from you that aligns with the new evidence. Are you still working on one?

Long as theories are abounding -they are neither; they are from Randall sheath maker Clayton Howard. The "story" is bullshit at best and confusion at least. They appear to have the hallmarks of Howard's sheaths.

Clayton Howard -Randall sheath maker, contemporary w/early M. Johnson.

Come on Ron.....Joe's not hard headed. I can't believe you would say that......he's thick headed! But he has done a stellar job of studying Randall Made Knives and passing that info on to dum basses like myself! As have you!

Traveling Man: Is that you? (Sorry - inside joke).

Seriously, Vencenz: if you have any info on a Clayton Howard as it pertains to him making sheaths for Bo we'd love to hear about it.

Thanks,

Ronnie,

I'd love to disagree, but I can't: Joe is a big asset to the community.

TM. I was going to enter that as an answer to Chaos' post, but decided some wouldn't think it funny.

Is this conversation dead?

To Ron's point, the sheathes in the auction have a link to Colorado.

If they are not Heisers, or Johnsons, what could they be?

Tune, just re-thinking the new information. I think there was one stamp sent to heiser for testing, around the time Johnson was coming into the picture. The stamp was probably sent to johnson when he took over. That is why Heiser sheath where marked Heiser at the end of their association with RMK. Just one line of thought.

Can this help..?...Guess what for..??

I am not sure it helps, but it looks like a Big Bear Bowie....with a 6" blade!

Guido.... What is it?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Sorry Guys,
I cannot post right now and I wish to show up with pics and not by words...
Only thing I can tell it is for a blade 100% same as RMK #12-6" little bear Bowie(my favorite RMK blade) but it's not a RMK..
Sorry Tune!...I don't have the knife here with me and I don't want to miss print all the I formations....
By the way it's a nice knife tough..!
....more to come...

Hi Guido,

From the snaps, it "looks" like a Johnson Castleberry sheath made for one of Ralph Bone's knives. Here's an example of what I'm talking about:


http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ralph-Bone-custom-knife-/200897337508?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2ec66a18a4&nma=true&si=x2Q62P%252Bdr7sMJq3bM5%252FtxPxsMX8%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557#ht_54wt_1328
Best,

Ron

...And The winner is: BOOO BLAAADE..!
Bravo Bo, it's a very nice Ralph BONE knife and the sheath's a Johnson Castleberry..
Pics soon !
Have a Peaceful Ester..

Ron.....you win a cookie.

That stamp says "Johnson's Castelberry"....is it same as Johnson we'R talking about?
Sorry if my question could appears....a silly question!...no so smart about sheaths..!
Have a Peaceful Ester
Guido

Same sheath maker at the same shop, in Castlebberyy, Fl. Nice combo Guido. I hope we can see pics in the fixed blade (or sharp talk) forum.
Best, Capt. Chris

Guido: Ralph made a very nice knife. I'm looking forward to seeing pics.

Ronnie: Oatmeal raisin, please. I'll PM you my ship to address.

Ron, please do it !!!

R54.... I'd love to hear more about this line of thought. It's new to me.....

Guido,

Hopefully this translates:

Ho parlato di vedere foto del coltello

Best,

Perfect Ron:
just posted your guess on "Sharp Talks" topic.

Stamp on the back says: Johnson's Leather Casselberry, FLA

Done Gumba...Done Capt. !

Joe, Ron and Tune:
Very interesting thread. Started me thinking and looking at similar knives. On the attached photo I tried to pick several brown button model 1's from the same general era. I always thought it was a given that if the sheath was marked with Randall on the back it was a Johnson. Now, after looking at these I'm not so sure. See if you can guess what sheath is a Heiser, what is a Johnson and what is the bottom sheath?


I'll show the back sides in a little bit.

Gary Clinton

Ron would you settle for a box of girl scout cookies?
If so please send the address.

Gary,
Great photo and equally great to see you posting! I know how busy you are. Thanks for your participation.
Best, Capt. Chris

Hi Chris,

This is the best forum and the only one for me. I've been sending people to the club. Hopefully they are signing up.

Gary

I'll take a shot Gary.

Starting at the top...
#1 JRB
#2, #3, &#4 Heiser
#5 JRB
#6 Stockman

Nice to see you posting, Gary. Tough one, even if you had posted a pic of the backsides! From the top: Four Heisers, a JRB and I'll go with Tunes guess of a Stockman for the last.

Ronnie,

Thanks, but I think I'll pass:

Ron and Tune;

I don't know if there is a right or wrong answer anymore. Here are the back sides:

A little more on each knife:

From the top:

#1: Has a name and date etched from Randall 1960. Pinned ebony. Lugged nickel silver hilt and the sheath is indented for it. Quality of the sheath is very good. CK, ST snaps.

#2 Obvious Heiser but the workmanship and leather quality are off for a typical Heiser. United Carr snaps

#3 Here is where I'm beginning to wonder: The workmanship, quality of leather and everything else screams Heiser. The leather is thin and the stitching is identical to a Heiser. United Carr snaps

#4 Typical Heiser. United Carr snaps

#5 I would say a typical Johnson but the workmanship is still better than average. No groove on the stone flap or belt loop. This white stone. CK, ST snaps.

#6 I would agree that this is a Stockman. Poor quality. CK, ST snaps


Gary

Let's make this a little easier.





Very interesting discussion. Carry on.

Wow....#3 really does look like a Heiser.

BTW Gary, the knives are great! If I only knew someone that liked old fighters!

Good to see you posting....

Here are six brown buttons:



On the flipside, five have the Randall logos and one has the Heiser logo:



From the standpoints of overall quality and stitching patterns, I would guess that the five with Randall logos are all Johnsons. Yet (as I previously alluded to), the overall quality and stitiching patterns of Heiser sheaths varied over the years. Here's a pic of two Heiser sheaths (One marked and the other unmarked) from the late 50's when both the shop and Heiser ran out of brown buttons for the 2nd time. If both were unmarked and had brown buttons, I would assume they were Johnsons:



Did someone say this ain't going to be easy?

Man I'm loving this thread. I'm learning that what I thought I knew I'm not so sure about any more. Or something of that nature. Anyway some nice sheaths and great knives. Keep it up. I love this forum.

I agree this is one of the most informative threads ever here, Mr Clinton, just how deep is your collection?

Hello Griff,
That depends on the day. Some days it's too much and others not enough! I still buy if that helps to answer your question.

Gary

Guys,

Still thinking about this topic and found a model 3 with a letter and post card from Randall dated September 1960. The sheath is a brown button with the Randall stamp. That makes two knives from 1960 with good information that have the Randall stamp.
If Johnson came about in 1961 or 62 then these would be too early for him.

Come to think of it: We have had an awful lot of knives go through our hands over the years that have been "one year only" Johnson brown buttons. Too many in my opinion.

Gary

Gentleman,

One thing that I have always noticed when looking at the difference between a JBB and a Heiser sheath is not only the stitching and leather but the color of the buttons. The JBB buttons are usually a tanish color, and the Heiser more of a yellowish. If you look at all 12 sheaths pictured from Ron and Gary, you will see. What do you think?

Brian,

These old eyes can't notice any difference. Bo would have tooled up only one source and supplied the brown buttons to both Heiser and Johnson. Because of the set up cost, there would have been a minimum order quantity, and that would have been a large number (Gaddis states that minimum order quantity from the baby dot fastener guy was 100K). A difference in color of the snaps would only have occurred in different batches or runs. The chances that a new batch came in about the same time that Johnson arrrived on the scene is pretty slim. Even if this was the case, Bo would have used all of this inventory before he transitioned to the baby dots and the numbers during that timeframe don't support this. Notwithstanding, Hunt seemed to notice a difference. In his book "Randall Fighting Knives in Wartime" on page 181, he states "Johnson Brown buttons appear to be lighter in color than the ones that we see on Heiser or Moore sheaths". However, his understanding at that time was that all brown button sheaths with Randall logos were made by Johnson.

Gary,

If we use your data points from 1960 to assume Heiser started using the Randall stamp at that time, and the following sequence of events: Gary "discovers" Johnson in the spring / summer of 1962, it takes Johnson a minimum of 6 months to come up to speed and baby dots being introduced in late '62 or early '63, the "vast majority" of brown button sheaths with Randall logos were produced by Heiser.

Best,

Seems an appropriate spot to jump back on...round about a hundred years ago I was sitting chewing the fat with Rhett -talking vintage Randall's and such. The subject of a particular sheath came up. The sheath in question had the Randall stamp and for all intents & purposes appeared to be an early MJ sheath. However, close inspection (is there any other) revealed some interesting period differences. Once noted, hard to not see.

It was determined, by all present, that the sheath was made by one Clayton Howard. That the Randall's located a local (?) leather worker in the Orlando area prior to or concurrent with, MJ is difficult to ascertain. Howard was from Michigan (if memory serves), home of another beloved and a location not strange to Bo. Whether Howard migrated to Orlando due to the Harness industry or produced the sheaths up north may be lost in the detritus of time. The sheaths were high quality, had particular attributes and were stamped with the Randall stamp.

I contend, the sheaths ya'll are attributing to Heiser, due to the quality of workmanship, are in fact, sheaths made by Clayton Howard. It is also my contention that when the Randall's located a solid, local maker -their needs were met and came the end of the brief relationship with Howard.

Recon there's a bit more to it but that should be enough scent to get ya'll on the trail. Happy hunting!

Really, a heretofore unknown Randall sheath supplier and we get a scavenger hunt?

Brian,

I looked at several of mine in sunlight and could not determine a color difference beyond a little lighter or darker. I don't know what effect UV would have over 50-60 years, but I am sure it's something.

Lol.....I guess so Ron.....crack can be bad!

Great supposition and theory, but unfortunately it is not true. The elements of your post highlighted in red above are the open ended portions that require further clarification. That is of course if you want your participation taken seriously.

The sheaths in question are in fact most probably Heiser-Keyston-Lichtenberger sheaths. There is NO other sheath maker of merit during Bo's search for a local sheath maker and prior to the participation of Maurice Johnson.

I think some folks are of the opinion that Bo was out beating the streets every day in his "search". I do not think that is the case and it was more of an informal undertaking with several folks submitting samples over a period of time. You have to remember, it is not enough to have the skill alone to make the sheaths, but to also have the capability to make the quantities required and the desire to do so.

While we all loved Rhett, he was a knife purveyor, not a Randall historian. He would acknowledge that without hesitation.

Pictures - Pictures - Pictures
Show us something to back up your statements.

It should also be noted that the harness maker, across the street from the "Holiday House" restaurant (which was on the harness track grounds in Orlando) was indeed, Stockman. We all know the quality of those sheaths. While good, they were certainly not great. This is no serious critic of Stockman. He was in the harness and tack business and I am sure his sheaths were not his #1 priority. I have not heard of any other harness maker or leather shop making product in the Orlando area.
For what it's worth, Capt. Chris

My observations on this issue:

1, I have never heard of Clayton Howard and would need some serious proof before I started to think that he was a sheath supplier to Randall.
2, I don't see a difference in the button color between Johnson and Heiser. I once thought the same but after looking at obvious Heisers or Johnsons I can see both dark and light from each maker.
3, Personally, I think Heiser may have made a small amount of Randall stamped brown buttons but I also think Johnson made the majority. Perhaps the date for Johnson needs to be looked at more.... Joe or Ron: Can you guys think of another way to get more info on this?

Gary

Gary,

First, I am glad to hear you have not heard of Clayton Howard....I thought I had missed the memo on that one.

Are you saying Johnson was on the scene earlier than the 61-62 estimates?

Gary -

This is the best I can do at this time.

http://www.rmkcollector.com/archives/the-randall-collector/a-johnson-sheath-footnote-part-iii/

Gary,

Based on the timeline I previously noted: Gary "discovers" Johnson in the spring / summer of 1962, it takes Johnson a minimum of 6 months to come up to speed and baby dots being introduced in late '62 or early '63

1. I don't think Gary was in error on his timing to discover Johnson.
2. I don't think it took any less than 6 months for Johnson to get up to speed from scratch (As a sheathmaker).
3. IMO the only possibility that the window opened up enough for Johnson to make a significant number of brown button sheaths is that the timing of the baby dot introduction that Gaddis mentions in his book is wrong, and the actual introduction was sometime later.

best,

Model 4-6, scribed on backside 3-11-61

I remember that knife. If that doesn't look like a Johnson front and back, I don't know what does.

I agree that this is a obvious Johnson. I think only a very few would qualify as a possible Heiser. I'm busy this week and next but if this thread is still alive I will try to get some more examples of possible Heiser's with the Randall stamp. I'll also look for some SS stamped knives and see if I have any Heiser's with those. That would date it at 1963. I don't think so but I'll look.
So with Mike's knife and potentially others that would date Johnsons involvement before 1962 I think it is safe to say that he was on the scene before traditional thinking had it.

Gary

Gary,
Agreed on the pre 1962 as plausible for Johnson involvement. ...and, in all good defense of GTR, it is quite easy to be off a small bit of time when recalling all of this stuff.
I have spoken with "Crutch" as well as "Rigid54" and I find the possibility of this Michigan maker possible. I have promised (and I'm not a snitch) to not reveal anyone (who does not want to be named) in this thread...BUT...(I know: That word again) this guy Howard did exist and the "stories" hold pretty good water! And the person telling the story is a good friend, good customer and collector.
....just sayin', Capt. Chris

Cap,

I think there is a good chance that GTR aligned his discovery of Johnson with a corresponding event event his life. If so, that would give the specific year more credibility. Would you mind asking him the next time you two talk? Thanks.

Regarding Rigid54: He may be a good friend, good customer and collector (To you), but to us he was an unknown entity that jumped right into the middle of the discussion claiming The "story" is bullshit at best and confusion at least! IMO not exactly the best way to influence friends and lead into his own hypothesis! I can understand him not having any more information about Clayton Howard than he gave us, but he spoke of "hallmarks", "interesting period differences" and "particular attributes" of the Howard sheaths that he did have knowledge of by virtue of seeing the sheath in question and being involved in the discussion with Rhett, but no response was forthcoming when Joe questioned him about these.

I don't mind (In fact I love) discussing Randall history with anyone, but if you're going to put forth a theory, then put some meat on the bones or keep the skeleton in the closet.

Respectfully,

I placed a call to Gary yesterday and spoke to Michael Randall instead. It took me about 3-4 minutes before Michael told me it was "Michael"...not "GTR". Man: Do those 2 sound alike!
Anyway: The stock sale is coming up and I don't want to bother GTR (Or anyone at the shop) right now. I called to ask about any recognition of Clayton Howard or recollection. I agree Ron. Good discussions about Randall knives, and it's associated history are always welcome by me as well.
...to be continued, Capt. Chris

The fact that anyone can come to this site and post anonymously still remains the biggest problem with the participation and content. The owner/mods should have viable contact information for members. That would stop the grenade throwers.


Michael -

There are more than a few knives marked such as yours, some blade etched, that would lend some merit to MJ being involved earlier than conventional wisdom allowed.

I deferred to GTR's memory (as stated in Gaddis) in my last essay as being the most accurate time although I was told otherwise by an individual that worked in the shop from 1960 to 1966. I have never asked GTR personally, just don't want to bother him with this stuff. Maybe it is time.

Ron -

I DON'T understand why Rigid 54 doesn't have any more information. In fact, it is stunning he DOESN'T have any information the way he touts his position and claims any other is bull feces. For someone that apparently believes HIS "story" is the correct one, there is nothing to support it. This smells of wanting to believe something so badly that you begin to believe it is true. Kinda like all the folks that thought that Obama would be/is a good president. We all know an individual like this.

I will net it out. We have a (as in one) "conversation" between three people, one a purveyor who admittedly was not a history buff, the other a "collector", and the third mystery man allegedly a collector also. My question, was there a Quija board present at this meeting?

In any case, the subject sheaths were NOT made by one "Clayton Howard".

We need a "Like" option on this forum.

Mike,
Johnson all the way...to me anyway. Of course, someone "inking" 1961 on the back of a sheath don't make it so. Nice package. You need to bring that one to me. I smell a T-R-A-D-E!
Best, Capt. Chris

I know this is slightly off subject but think it might be applicable in a way... I just don't know what that way is yet. I owned two double S model 2s that were in silver dot Johnson sheaths (the model 2-5s in the Knife Of The Week - Model 2" thread). There is a double S model 2 in one of Hunts books that's also in a silver dot Johnson sheath. All of the double S model 1s I've seen are in "Johnson" brown button sheaths.

Assuming the double s knives were all made during the same very brief time period, why would model 1s be in brown button sheaths and model 2s be in silver dot sheaths?

Stephen Infantino

Capt. Chris--

When I called the shop just before the sale, "Gary" answered the phone, and when I called him by name, I got a chuckle out of "Michael" who had actually answered!

Larry

Here is a fly for the ointment......

It's no Johnson..... nor a Heiser.

I downloaded the images from Ebay and cleaned them up a little.

Original auction here: Auction

Take a whiff of that leather and it will smell new.....like leather. Lol! This sheath has been artificially aged to deceive! Note it isn't old! I can't tell about the knife but that sheath is bogus!

All,

See page 74 of Pete Hamiltons book - top left corner. There is a Heiser Sheath with "SAMPLE" marked in the same color and what looks like the exact handwriting that's on the auction sheaths marked "SAMPLE" shown in this thread.

Stephen Infantino

I had a lengthy discussion with a gentleman on another forum that I think is important enough to share with you guys. His name is Jack Williams and he goes by "Jacknola". He hasn't been involved with Randalls that long, but he has taken the power of observation and focused it on the differentiating attributes of Heiser vs. Johnson BB sheaths carrying the vertical Randall logo (Something that's hard to believe some of us more seasoned collectors haven't done before!) . Two distinct "tell's have emerged:



1. The orientation of the (vertical) stamp.

2. The placement of the male keeper snap on the sheath.



We need to start out by making sure these features are indeed associated with a specific manufacturer. In the case of Heiser, we have the ebay auction photo as a control. From the 1st photo, we can see that the vertical 12-9 logo is positioned in what Jack calls "West-facing". In other words you have to be "West" of the vertical logo in order to have the printing to read right-side-up:







In the next photo, you can easily see that the male retainer snaps are positioned in the center of the sheath.







In the case of Johnson, we don't have an absolute "known" Johnson BB sheath to use as a control, so we can take a mid-to-late 60's tight stitched plain button or "baby dot" sheath to use as a control for these attributes. Here's a pair of Johnson baby dot 1-7 sheaths with a diagonal keeper strap. Note that the male keeper is positioned on the far right side of the sheaths:







On the back side, you can see that the Randall logos are oriented "East-facing":







The litmus test as to whether or not these different features can used as a guideline to determine if a BB sheath with a Randall logo was made by Heiser or Johnson is whether or not the manufacturers were consistant in their orientation of the vertical logo and the placement of the male keeper.



From the Heiser side, do all sheaths that either have very early 60's provenance or blade grinds have the "West-facing" logos and middle of the sheath male keepers. So far, EVERY ONE of these that Jack or I have found do! Here are some examples:



1. Tom Clinton's pinned ebony Model 1-8 name and year 1960 etched (Top knife):






As you can see, the male keeper is positioned in the middle of the sheath.



As you can see, the vertical Randall logo is West-facing (Knife on the left).

2. Michael Mason's 4-6 with an ink marked sheath dated 3-11-61:





Note the male keeper is positioned in the middle of the sheath





Note the vertical Randall logo is oriented West-facing.


3. Bob Hunt's double hilt Model 3-7 on page 169 of his book Randall Military Models with a 1961 ink marked sheath:





It's hard to see, but the logo is West-facing. There is no photo of the front of the sheath.


4. There are some BB sheaths with Randall logos that are so early in the 60's that they still have a horizontal keeper. All these that I have found have the West-facing logo:







5. All of the very early 60's knives with shallow elongated choils that I have found have BB sheaths with West-facing logos and middle of the sheath male snaps. Here are a few examples:


Jack's Model 1-8:







My laminated brown Micarta 3-6:







My "original Recon":







On the flip side, EVERY mid to late 60's tight stitched rough back Johnson baby dot sheath I have or have seen carries the East-facing logo and diagonal keeper that is fastened at one of the far sides of the sheath! Other BB sheaths with the Randall logos that I know are not early 60's have East-facing logos and far edge keeper placements. The first order in Bo's journal for a 12-8 was February 6th, 1964. This is the only known 12-8 BB sheath. It has the East-facing logo and far side keeper placement:





With reagrd to the "horizontal" Randall logos: Every one of these that I've seen has the keeper placed in the middle of the sheath, which seems to be consistant with Heiser.


There may be a THIRD distinguishing feature! As I was going through my sheaths to photograph a few this morning, I noticed that all the West-facing logo / middle keeper placement sheaths had a "tooled ridge" on the edges:





While all the the East-facing logo / far side keeper placement sheaths had "rounded shoulders":

[img]http://www.fototime.com/638C5DF67BF4E85/large.jpg[/img]

Then I took a look at my 50's Heiser sheaths and saw all of these had tooled edges:

[img]http://www.fototime.com/490D4E60F818F77/large.jpg[/img]

I'm soliciting help from anyone who can contribute to what Jack calls his "Heiser-Johnson brown button Grand Unification Theory" in terms of data points that either support it or contradict it. If we're going to have a Randall community-accepted method for distinguishing Heiser vs. Johnson BB sheaths, we need to have statistical probability on our side. If and when there is general acceptance, then we can start to narrow down the timeframe that Johnson got involved. I don't think there is any way to pinpoint it by knife attributes, as (1) There were varying quantities of Heiser sheaths in stock for different models at that time and (2) Some knives sat in inventory for a while before they were sold, but we should be able to get a pretty good idea. We might even be able to come up with a graphic timeline that looks something like this (Courtesy of Jack)


[img]http://www.fototime.com/606D4BC0F8C50DC/orig.jpg[/img]


Thanks in advance for any help you can give.


Best,

This is very interesting and my compliments to Jacknola and you Ron for the good work. I haven't visited with Jack in some time and hated to see him sort of back out of this forum. He always had interesting info and had been there and done that.
Ron I have a Model 11 Pinned Ivory that came in a BB sheath that I always assume was a Johnson.....the logo is a West-Facing logo. I have talked to the original owner of my knife, who was a Randall Dealer for many years, and had this knife made with Ivory that he had taken on Safari in Africa. He does not remember the date of it's production. Only that it was late 50's or early 60's. Forgot to mention that the sheath has a horizontal keeper strap.
Wish I had more for you but at this time that is my only BB.
Please give Jack my regards.

I'm glad to see this very interesting information make it to this forum as well.

Ronnie / Rob: Thanks!!!!!!

Ron, Please pass on my regards to Jack and thanks for the excellent info, Guys!

Jack and his brother were the real deal in Vietnam and Jack was, as mentioned, a guy with many talents.

I too am sorry that he does not post on the forum at this time.

Tom Vaught

Pretty good information. Interesting. I learn something new on this site pretty often. Lot's of the time I learn things I didn't even think about before. Keep it up guys.

Wow. Just when you thought this thread couldn't get any better!
Thanks Ron.
And send my regards to Jack. Tell him to come on back!
Tony

Tom / Tony,

Thanks!I passed your sentiments on to Jack.

Steven: I know Jack put in a lot of time and effort into his research trying to advance Randall knowledge. I think I can safely say on behalf of Jack that's it's all worthwhile when there is feedback such as yours.

Best,

The discussions and observations on Heiser vs. Johnson are really great. In my observations of sheaths,it seems to me that close examination of the sheath shapes, (especially the portion that is folded over to create the belt loop), the little tooled ridge that shows up on Heisers, and the orientation of the LOGO are areas that need to be studied more closely.

Here are two sheaths to add to the review. First a brown button sheath for an 8-4 that has the rounded edges and no "tooled ridge".

Next a brown button sheath for a 7-4 with off-center diagonal keeper strap, and west facing logo.

Art DeCamp

Thanks and welcome, Art!

Can you elaborate any on your comment about "the portion that is folded over to create the belt loop"? Have you noticed any differences?

Nice 7-4! That's a mid 50's stone. Must have sat in the bin for a while.

Best,

Ron

Ron,

Here are some photos backing that up... Seems clear to me:

4-7 with deep choil:





1-6 with deep choil - I always thought this sheath looked like a Heiser:





1-6 in what is clearly a Johnson Sheath:





1-8 with deep choil and pinned laminated Brown Micarta handle next to 1-7 with ebony handle in what is clearly a Johnson Sheath:

Smokin' job, Stephen! Thanks.......

Thank you Ron. The Photos aren't showing up when I read the thread and all I see are the links. Any idea how to fix that?

I had a couple of those in my long post yesterday that did the same thing. I erased, copied and pasted the URL multiple times as an edit and could not get them to show. I have no clue what went wrong. The good thing is that you can still click the links to see the photos.

If you save the code for an image in Microsoft word because you want to post multiple pictures, prior to posting there is a typically Microsoft, unnecessary and complicated twist.

This is an example of how the code will read after you copy it to MS word from the photo hosting site before you post it…. [URL=http……...[img][/URL].

If while in the MS word document you hit your space bar after the last “[URL]” at the end of the picture code, MS word will highlight only the [img]http…[img] portion of the code excluding the [url] bracket at the beginning. Then when you post the code to the site, it will not register as a picture in your on-line post, only as a link.

No problem. Before pasting the picture codes from your word document, note that the picture code in your word document now has a portion that has been converted to a blue-highlighted img-link. Right click on the blue highlighted portion of the picture code in your word document, then click “remove hyperlink” in the dropdown box, and now you are good to copy the entire link and post that code on line. The code will now have the bracketing initial [URL] definition and will appear as a picture on the website rather than a link.
Regards.

Ron and Jack,

Fist off I want to thank Jack for taking the time to study this and bring a fresh look into the topic. Sometimes you can't see the forest through the trees and it takes a different approach from a new direction.

Ron, thanks for keeping an open mind.

I looked at my knives of this era and can say that I have over 50 that would fall into the pattern that Jack and Ron suggest. I like to word it differently though: "R" for Randall on top of the sheath versus "R" on the bottom of the sheath. I always liked Heiser's work better than Johnson so "R" on top for Heiser.

I have a few of those sample sheaths in the first photos: Same person, same red lettering.

My pictures are too big so I will do this in a few posts:

The back side of the sample sheath. Sorry, just learning this forum pasting...

O.K. here is a documented 1960 knife. Note the post card from Randall and the date of September 8th 1960 with his matching name on the card and knife.

Now here is the problem. There is always one bad apple in the batch. This knife is obviously an oddball and there is nothing concrete about some guy writing his name and date on the back of the sheath. But the problem is it has the snap in the center of the sheath with the R for Randall on the bottom ( Johnson)

This is the only one like this I have so I would say it's 50 to 1.

From what I see and hear from these last posts I'm on board with this new theory. Sure there may be some exceptions and I'm convinced something must have happened at Heiser for the quality to dip towards the end of their sheath making era. It fits nicely with Gary Randall meeting Johnson in 1962 and it also does not suggest another sheath maker had a major role during this time. Thanks for the posts and I enjoyed this very much.

Gary

Hi Gary,

Thanks for contributing. I'd say we have a pretty convincing sample size now. I wouldn't be surprised if that 5-6 sheath was made on a Monday morning. Back at you on the open-mindedness comment.

Best,

First I would like to say that it is nice to see some honest discussion on this forum beyond the normal “look at my new knife” and “that is a beauty” threads.

The question about who made these sheaths and how and when they were stamped may never be settled with 100% certainty, but current evidence points to what we have been thinking for some time. This is not a new “debate”, and has been the topic of discussion amongst advanced collectors for many years.

Questions that remain unanswered:

The singularly most important question is what was the impetus for Bo to have a stamp made in the first place? Because he had already found a local sheath maker? In the event he found a local sheath maker? He didn't like the new "Heiser" stamp? Why?

More:

1) exactly when the first stamp(s) was purchased?
2) did it stay in the Randall shop in Orlando?
3) was it shipped out of state?
4) was there more than one stamp initially made?
5) did the remnants of the H.H. Heiser Company ship unmarked sheaths to Randall?
6) were unmarked Heiser sheaths stamped with the RMK stamp in the Randall shop?
7) did Maurice Johnson stamp unmarked Heisers’ in his shop?
8) exactly when was Maurice Johnson involved in the sheath making business?
9) did Hesier stay in Denver upon the final sale or move to San Francisco or LA?

This myriad of questions are all part of the puzzle.

I don’t know if the sheath stamp orientation alone is enough to say definitively the sheaths in question were made by Heiser. It is a function of how the cut pieces are laid out as the stamping is done prior to assembly, and as with most quality oriented manufacturers, continuity and uniformity are generally the rule of the day. It does lean in that direction however, and while it is not “new” information per se, having it as part of a series of characteristics, it adds to the evidence for those making a case.

The keeper snap location would also lean towards Heiser production, yet the two sheaths Ron posted photos of with the 3-6’s appear in some respects to be Johnson made.

The leather Hesier used was generally different than what Johnson used for the most part at least early on, but kind of became the same on some examples.

Then there is stitching which no one has addressed yet, and may be the most definitive difference.

I personally think that the “style” of the sheath in overall appearance is surely the most critical piece of evidence and what brought us here to begin with. The sheaths in question just “look” like a Heiser product, plain an simple. Take away all the minutia and just look at the sheath. What do you have? I addressed this in my last article on the subject linked previously in this thread.

Here are a couple of sheaths to think about. Ron was looking for the “control” Johnson, well here it is. The black 1-7 sheath has never had a knife in it. The other “Johnson” is almost in the same condition. Note that the black sheath is LH, so the stamp is in the correct orientation that some believe identifies it as Heiser made, yet it is a Johnson made sheath. Hmmmmmm…….

I will state again for the umpteenth time, that to eliminate grey areas and contradictions, and until concrete evidence that would answer some of the questions listed above presents itself, at this time and for my collecting purposes, and even though I may think differently, if a sheath has an RMK stamp, it is a Johnson.

Joe,

I have to leave in a few minutes to pick up the grandkids and take them to the beach, so I won't be able to respond until late today or tomorrow. That's unfortunate as I will be salivating in the interim to the point that I'll probably end up dehydrated.

Best,

I've spent alot of time gazing at sheaths and their construction in an effort to make sense of who made which sheath. It makes ones head hurt sometimes. Here are some photos of five different Model 7's with brown button sheaths. The three on the left are all stamped Heiser. The two on the right have the Randall Made stamping. All five have the "tooled ridge" or groove.

Close examination of the tooled groove shows that it always follows the stitching, and is only where stitching is on the sheath. With this in mind, it seems to me that this tooled groove is likely imparted onto the leather edge by the pressure foot of the stitching machine. I would assume different stitching machines apply different pressure patterns, as this same type tooled groove is not seen on later known Johnson or even Sullivan sheaths. I wonder if this groove could be unique to the stitching machine used by Heiser?

The next photo shows the backs same five sheaths. The die used to cut out the leather varies quite a bit in shape. I wonder if there is anything to be discovered here with respect to the timing of use of specific die patterns? Since the time that Johnson was supplying sheaths overlaps with that of Heiser, it seems likely to me that Johnon's dies for cutting the leather would have been different in some way.

Good photo Art......there is a clear difference in the color between the brown buttons on the Heiser sheaths as opposed to the Johnson's. The Johnson's are a little lighter and not as red.

Joe,

Over the last 10 years I've seen you do a lot of good in the community by educating collectors on Randall history and dating knives, but you have your head stuck in the sand on this one. There's been a preponderance of evidence presented as who made these sheaths that even a newbie can grasp, yet you continue to throw smoke and clutch at straws. One can speculate on the reasons why, but IMO none of them are in the interest of the community or worthy of your reputation.

In response to your smoke:



1. Once you throw in "when they were stamped", it then becomes easy to say the question may never be settled with 100% certainty.
2. The currect evidence does not point to what "we" have been thinking for some time. What we (You in particular) have been thinking for some time is that Johnson got involved earlier than Gary's recollection.




The singularly most important question is "who made these early sheaths" (~1960 through ~ mid 1962), and that has been answered with hard evidence. The hard evidence also strongly supports a logical scenario that after Heiser (finally) agreed to use a Randall stamp in the late 50's or early 60's, Bo sent them one and then sent Johnson a duplicate stamp when he was ready to produce. It was as simple as that. The rest of your questions are not germain to the crux of the issue.



There has not been just one or even just two distinct differences pointed out. There have been three:

1. Stamp orientation.
2. Keeper strap placement
3. The tooled edge.

How many do you want?



Those two sheaths you posted a photo of are poster children for "The Heiser-Johnson brown button grand unification theory"!: All three of the differences are in evidence.



I think you're on your own on this one, Joe. I can only hope that some day you give up the ghost and align with reality for the good of the community and the the history of Randall Made knives.

Best,

Art,

I don't know you, but your observation that the tooled groove and stitching are always hand-in-hand and the stitching machine may be responsible for this is brilliant. Great contribution!

Best,

Wow Ron, was not expecting that at all. Nevertheless, I will put it to you this way and as I have stated in this thread and the article on my site that is linked in this thread, I have never said Heiser did not make the sheaths, and in fact am aligned with what the 'preponderance" of evidence suggests. I even called it in print BEFORE you or anyone else jumped on the bandwagon. It wasn't until the sample sheath auction that you guys jumped on and made an issue of it.

All I have said and for those that have actually read my posts to include the newbie and the experienced collector alike, is that I would like to have some hard proof which up to this point has been unobtanium.

That being said, do YOU have any communication between Bo and the stamp maker? Do YOU have any communication between Bo and Heiser? Do YOU have an communication between Bo and Maurice Johnson? Do YOU have any hard evidence that states when or where sheaths were stamped?

I didn't think so.



No, you are incorrect. Bob H. and myself ("we") had numerous conversations (you were not privy to and I believe beginning before you were collecting) about this many years ago dating back to the late 90's. Although we had our thoughts that it would be improbable that Johnson could make an exact duplicate of a Heiser based on several factors , we (meaning Bob and myself) decided it was easier to give a RMK stamped sheath the nod to Maurice Johnson. It was as simple as that.




Supposition at best yet I am clutching at straws? YOU nor I nor anyone else knows this. Period. All you have said has not answered any of the questions that are "not germain to the crux of the issue". Well, they are exactly that, they are the issue.

IF, and that is a BIG IF, you can answer even one of the questions presented with hard proof, I am all ears.

Perhaps the best way to reference these sheaths is as "transitional" between Heiser and Johnson.

Does that make everybody happy?

But hey, what do I know, kinda dark where I am and the sand is in my eyes.

This isn't new either and has been talked about on numerous occasions that the presser foot and needle plate on the Heiser machine had a different shape and likely used more pressure resulting in the "tooled" edge effect which in fact is probably a by-product of the sewing process.

You will see sometimes see it to this day to a lesser degree on some Sullivan sheaths, particularly black sheaths.

Joe

I "think" the reason you see it more on black sheaths is the black leather is different than the tan leather. The black leather is "drum dyed" if my memory is correct.

Joe,

I don't know how you can say that you're now in fact aligned with what the 'preponderance" of evidence suggests, yet go on to say I would like to have some hard proof which up to this point has been unobtanium.THE SHEATHS THEMSELVES ARE THE HARD PROOF! Even now, you can't bring yourself to call these sheaths Heisers (Transitional? Come on....) In any event, I've said my piece and there is no merit in further debating minutiae with you.

If I came across hard, I apologise. It was in the interest of all the other collectors out there.


Best,

Again Ron, you need to READ MY POSTS THOROUGHLY which to this point you apparently have not done. It is all in the details my friend, or as you say, minutiae. Or did I call it that?

On page 11 of this thread a quote from my post:



You are repeating what I have already said. Remember, no one was on board until the sheath auction, then the zealots come out of the woodwork. Again, you should read the posts thoroughly.

Also, to be clear, Heiser made sheaths marked with the RMK stamp are most assuredly transitional sheaths. Otherwise, what are they?

In the "interest of all the other collectors out there", I am going with the position that this is still a friendly discussion. I believe most are on the same page, but I for one still like to dig a bit and look for the proverbial smoking gun. So, if some unequivocal information comes to light, it will be presented.

Joe and Ron...and everyone on the "sidelines",
Well: At least we have a thread that folks are passionate about! It is nice to see discussion and theories as to "what was" and "what could have or might have been". I still see a lot of theory and Monday morning quarterbacking.
The truth is constant and one thing holds "true" that can be carried on from this thread. I spoke to Joe an hour ago and I told him (This was before I got home and read all of the recent posts.) that the only true way one can characterize these sheaths, in question, is by using the term "transitional". That is true and what, I believe, they are (at least without editorializing as to what and where and when and who)!
I know of no concrete evidence to support Heiser having ever received a Randall sheath stamp. I never witnesssed old Heiser revolver holsters with Montgomery Ward or J C Penney's logos or names either. I could spectulate that Heiser used their name...and their name "only" on their leather work. Do I have any proof? Absolutely not! Do I arrive at this conclusion simply by what I have "seen" verses "never seen"? NO! I I'm not arriving at any conclusions or speculations. That's why I stated that I "could" speculate. I'm not "actually" speculating.
Either way: Transitional sheaths do, indeed, exist. We are seeing some (quite splendid) examples of them within this thread and I hope we continue to do so. But the truth is still represented by the "transitional" label.
Keep it up everyone (and let's be nice),
Best, Capt. Chris

Joe,

You're killing me here (I'm sure I killing you as well). Yes, I read your posts. This is one of them:








The "Zealot" you mentioned was the guy who was responsible for putting this old question to bed. I for one thank the guy.

The sheaths are Heiser first and "transitional" second in the order of importance to the community.

Best,

Cap,

You sound like Joe's doppleganger. I'm burnt out....

Best,

Ron

I'm not "sure" I've been insulted as I don't know what "dopplebanger" means but I'm sorry you're burnt out Ron.
Good stuff, Capt. Chris
PS: I can assume, seeing as how I'm mentioned in the same breath as Joe, that I didn't get a compliment...CCS

Cap,

No insult. It's just that neither you or Joe can bring yourselves to call these sheaths Heisers, which is what they are. I don't know what the reason(s) behind this are, but it's frustrating.

Best,

Ron,
Send me an email to:
CAPTSTANABACK@aol.com

Capt. Chris

Yep, it does look like a Johnson more so than what we would call the typical Heiser product like the tan 1-7 sheath I posted a photo of along with the black Johnson. That is irrefutable. Look at the stitching, very typical of Johnson and atypical of Heiser, although I have seen some Heiser marked sheaths with the thicker type of stitching.

The stone pouch cut and stitching is more reminecent of Johnson also. That is my opinion when looking at that particular sheath.

The butterfly stitching on the back also resembles a Johnson more so than the typical Heiser, to me.

Even the leather looks more like what Johnson would use versus what we would expect Heiser to use.

Who might that zealot be?



That is a matter of opinion. You can have all the circumstantial evidence on the planet, but the theories and supposition won't hold up in court. So, while I have said prior to this thread, prior to the sample sheath auction, prior to you and most anyone but along with Hunt, that the sheaths in question are likely Heiser made, I still don't have some form of factual documentation supporting what we know to be the case.

Perhaps one day with a little luck, something will turn up.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!!?!

I have said many times that the sheaths are in my opinion Heiser made and again in print prior to you or anyone else saying so, so I am trying to figure out why you keeps saying what you are saying.

What I have also said is I would like some factual documentation to support it.

On top of that, the transitional tag is nothing more than an accurate description, because that is what they are. I have not seen one with a Hesier stamp have you? So a Heiser made sheath with an RMK stamp would be a transitional sheath to the RMK stamped Johnson sheath.

In the timeline method:

Heiser stamped Heiser sheath - RMK stamped Heiser sheath - RMK stamped Johnson sheath

Damn, that might just be too logical.

We have no gap now, Joe. Thanks.

Ruh roh! Tell me about this one.

Joe and I have been trading email about this sheath for a few days. I am really interested in some other thoughts. It is a curious package....

Thanks for posting Joe.

Early 60's!
1. During the time when the shop and Heiser ran out of BB snaps for the 2nd time.
2. Precisely when the shop and Heiser ran out of the small brown substitute snaps.
3. Precisely when Heiser switched over from stamping their logo to the horizontal Randall logo.
4. Just before the next shipment of BB snaps arrived.

A "perfect confluence" of happenstances. This period only lasted a few days.

Give me a tough one next time

Was that on a Wednesday, Ron?

Ron -

not so fast my friend.

Per Gaddis:

"It was Maurice Johnson who convinced Bo, Gary, And Bill to change from the type of snap used on the Heiser sheaths to a much stronger model.

Johnson suggested a snap of about the same overall size but with much greater holding power and of a construction that was less likely to be damaged. These are commonly referred to as "Baby Dot" fasteners.

After testing these snaps, the Randalls gave him the okay to switch form their brown button type, with logo, to the Baby Dot, which was plain nickel-plated brass. Since late 1962 or early 1963, all Johnson-made sheaths used the snaps, while the Heiser continued to use those with the brown button and logo. The snap installation machine at Heiser would not accept this stronger Baby Dot fastener...."

I do not recall ever seeing a "Heiser", transitional or otherwise, with a baby dot snap on the stone pouch. Those are done by the sheath maker. Only keepers were done at the shop.

It was not done by the remnants (covered in an article and here) of the Heiser company according to Gaddis' statements above. So, what is the true explanation here.

dopplerbanger is german for apple dumpling gang (Capt on right) and your all banned

Tune,

You were interested in other thoughts. That's what I gave you. So far as we know it's a "one off" (Although one or more may surface down the road). Therefore it was created under a very unique set of circumstances that occurred during a very short period of time. That's why we've only seen one of them. Unconventional things do happen. The history of what went on in the shop over the years has proven this time and time again.



Joe,

Horizontally stamped Randall logo sheaths phased out well before the baby dot came into use! Also, take a close look at the size of the "baby dot" snaps on that 1-6 sheath. Without a doubt they are larger than the baby dot snaps that Johnson used. IMO this unique snap set up was either done by Heiser or the Shop when the supply of other snaps was exhausted. Bo wouldn't delay getting paid for a knife even a few days if he could also deliver a "functional" sheath.

Well...Opinions...
GTR has told me (on more than one occasion) that Heiser never had a Randall stamp! I think this correct. I can recall Heiser leather goods in various "big stores" back in the day. (Sears and Montgomery Ward, as well as JC Penney). Even with the "big business influence" Heiser maintained their company stamping...only??
My guess is: either:
* Early Johnson transition sheath...
Or:
* One of the "other" makers Gary has mentioned Bo pursued, prior to settling on Johnson??? Just a guess, but some useful caveat along with...
Best, Capt. Chris
PS: (I'm not banned either...)

Cap,

Since you want to join the fray:

According to Gaddis, GTR "found" Maurice Johnson in 1962 (Pg 224). There are documented cases of horizontally stamped Randall logo sheaths prior to this. Look on page 11 of this thread and Gary Clinton's post dated May 5th at 9:24 PM: You will see photos of a similar sheath that is documented as being shipped on September 8th, 1960!

Can you show me a photo of a Johnson sheath with baby dot snaps and a keeper positioned to be secured in the center of the sheath?

What "other makers that Bo pursued"? We all know what a Stockman sheath looks like and this ain't one of them!

I don't see any discernible difference in size of this snap by photograph and without the sheath in hand it can't be determined definitively. That being said, it is probably the same snap.

Nevertheless, Gaddis clearly states that the Heiser-Keyston-Lichtenberger company did not have the ability to use the "Baby Dot" style of snap. In any case, with the last order from HKL arriving in 1962, they most likely would not have had the impetus to even try the snap.

Interesting is the photo of the 3-6 you posted appears to have originally had a larger snap on the stone pouch that was removed, unless that is from pressing that snap on, but you don't see the same indentation on the keeper.

I agree with Ron Cap, it definitely appears to be of HKL manufacture. There really is not a "mystery" maker as some have promoted on occasion. Yes there were a few samples made here and there, but nothing in any quantity.

Ron, that was obviously a poor attempt at humor on my part. I hope you know I respect your knowledge of older Randalls. No offense intended.

I do apologize.

Joe,

We differ here: I do see a discernable difference in the size of these snaps! The width of either a Heiser or Johnson retainer strap varies a bit, but not by much. Look at the largest image of the keeper you posted: The diameter of the keeper snap aligns with the edge of the keeper strap on one side and actually overhangs the other side! I'm not letting you get away with saying "That said, it's probably the same snap"!

Yes, Heiser didn't have the ability to fasten the (smaller) baby dot snaps, but they sure did have the ability to fasten larger snaps! Just look at the ones they substituted for BB's around 1950.

Tune: No offense taken for sure.

Best to both of you guys.

Let's start with the E-bay "Heiser employee" unfinished sheaths that had Randall stamps. It is very difficult to imagine a Heiser employee who lived his whole life in Colorado and left as part of his estate, a box of Randall stamped sheaths. To accept the above would require that at some point in his life, he went to Florida and acquired those unfinished sheaths from Mr. Johnson. He would then have had to put them into a box of unfinished Heiser sheaths. That is bit of a stretch in my book.

It is even harder to imagine that in 1959, Mr. Johnson started making Randall sheaths absolutely identical in every way to Heisers except for the logo stamp ... and that he made a thousands of them from 1959-1963. Then in about early 1963, he decided to change the entire leather layout and construction characteristics of his sheaths.

To my knowledge, Heiser did not "maintain their logo." The "Heiser" logo we are most familiar with was dropped for most other Heiser products in the early '50s when Heiser ceased to be ony "Heiser." Thereafter, the Heiser stamp was mainly used on Randall knife sheaths. After 1959, the Heiser logo again changed to a cheap looking cartoon-ish stamp used on other Heiser products.

More info ... the sheath stamp is most likely applied to the leather early in the process of construction. It would be difficult to reliably apply a stamp to a completed sheath, I've tried to simulate it in my shop.

The conclusion of the above, which by no means constitutes the entire case, is that Heiser stamped those sheaths. So what about the statements of Mr. GTR? Perhaps he was mistaken.. it was very early in his time in the shop when Heiser quit making sheaths. Or perhaps someone misunderstood what he said or meant, or missed a qualifying word or two.

It requires a pretty unusual set of circumstances to imagine anyone other than Heiser making those brown-button sheaths with the Randall stamp from 1959 to 1963. The case is pretty solid. I think the folks holding out against accepting this are becoming a pretty isolated minority now. But this is still America and all are entitled to an opinion. I just wish they would publish the case for Johnson-made, or whomever-made, so that it can be examined along-side the perponderance of evidence posted in favor of Heiser-made.

Jack,
I spoke with Gary quite recently. His wording was not mis-heard. He stated that he "knew" his Father was "actively" seeking other sheath makers. Samples were received from a few and, even the "Heiser former employee", with no records had "sample" examples? Jack: We can all speculate and..hell I have no certainty about this era. I was younger than Gary.
GTR also has no recall of the name of the harness maker who has been tied to some of this mystery. Does that make it not so? Perhaps. I would wonder why Heiser would send "samples" to the Randall shop, after already having been making these sheaths for decades, especially when Bo Randall was actively trying to find somebody else?
I love the pashion you pursue these questions with Jack. I hope you, (we) whomever can get a finite answer someday. Maybe this is just what makes this "Randall thing" so much darn fun! Keep up the good hunt, Jack. I am not one to jump in on posts and expound kudos, be it new knives or research on "oldies", but I appreciate you dedicating your time in the strife.
Best, Capt. Chris

Ron -

the snap on the keeper appears to be offset a bit that lends itself to appearing larger but not by much if it is at all.

You are completely discounting Gaddis and to say that HKL (not Heiser as we know it) had a press for the "larger" Baby Dot that was not even a thought PRIOR to Johnson's suggestion to Bo, Gary, and Bill to make the change, is more than a big reach.

By your logic, HKL "suggested" or "experimented" with the change well before Johnson made the change. So using that same logic, why is there a 3-4 year period where HKL continued to use the inferior brown button when the Baby Dot was available to them but the change only came about because of Johnson?

The snaps you mention from 1950 are a totally different animal. Not apples to apples.

Jack -

http://www.rmkcollector.com/archives/the-randall-collector/a-johnson-sheath-footnote-part-iii/

I wrote this a couple of years ago. You can find some "Heiser" history there.

Heiser as we know it no longer existed. It was a different company and really only a part of a larger one. It would appear the company had changed direction to some extent. So how interested was the remnants of the H.H. Heiser company in continuing the relationship with RMK? No one has considered the view from the other side of the equation. We only talk about Bo looking for a local maker.

The auction of those sheaths is being portrayed as the litmus for the Heiser/Johnson debate. We don't really know who the original owner was, what the true extent of his involvement of HKL was, i.e. how long was he with them? What kind of territory did he have? What was he selling? How did he come about the sheaths?

A question would be what would the "salesman" need RMK sheath samples for when H.H. Heiser had already been making sheaths for RMK for 15 plus years? Just to show an RMK stamp? Bo could have done that in Orlando if he wanted to see how the stamp looked on leather. To show to other knife makers? Unlikely in my opinion.

I know of no reason why the HKL company would not use the stamp they had at the time to indentify their leather products but make a switch to an RMK stamp unless they were asked to do so by Bo. It doesn't seem that is the case.

Joe,

I took measurements on half a dozen Heiser and Johnson sheaths: The keeper strap widths are all 9/16" (Within a negligible tolerance), and the baby dot snaps on the Johnson sheaths are exactly 1/2" (Again within a negligible tolerance). I'm asking you to look again at the 1-6 photos below. I went to the auction and took the two best angles from each side. As you can see, there is no way that snap is 1/2" in diameter if the width of the strap is 9/16":






Not the case at all, Kemosabe! I'm quoting Gaddis: The snap installation machine at Heiser would not accept this stronger Baby Dot fastener, at least not without costly modification. Gaddis doesn't say why it would not accept it. It could be any number of reasons! We'll never know. One thing we do know is that you can't rule out size. I have a circa 1950 Heiser leather 300 Mag cartridge carrier. Pics below:




As you can see, it has a painted steel snap in the same domed configuration as a Baby Dot and is 9/16" in diameter! So Heiser WAS tooled for a 9/16" steel snap!



I'm not going to refer to the later operations of Heiser as "HKL". Yes, the company changed ownership, but there is no evidence that the facility, equipment, operation and personnel were tampered with. From a Randall collectors perspective, a Heiser sheath is a Heiser sheath whether made in 1945 or 1960! With regard to your question: How plausible is this scenario: Johnson had equipment to fasten a 1/2" diameter steel snap, but not a 9/16" diameter snap. Why would Bo pay to have Heiser tool up for 1/2" when he could maintain status quo for a finite period of time? So yes: We're talking apples to apples!

Request to anyone reading this thread and buys the 1-6 in question: Can you please let us know the diameter of the snaps. That will give us a lot more to go on. If I eat crow, it won't be the first time.

On what basis are you making this claim? WOW!

Chris I respect your experience and expertise. But I do this for a living. Unfortunately, an anecdotal conversation with no details is not evidence. I would like to know what prompted the discussion of the Randall stamp and Heiser. Surely you asked some preliminary and follow-up questions, what was answered? What was the context? Assuming the conversation as stated, the exact words are important... such as did he say "so far as I know?" or something similar? After all, we are talking about a stamp supplied to Heiser in 1958-59, long before Mr. GTR joined the shop.

By the way... we all think we know what the Heiser-Keyston-Lichtenberger stamp that was used following the '58-'59 merger looked like... right? Well, maybe not. Here is the first H-K-L combined catalog, front back papes. I can see why Mr. Randall might not want that stamp on his sheaths.



And here are the two (of several) H-K-L stamps. In 1960, immediately after the merger, apparently the buffalo stamp was used at least on saddles. Perhaps the other stamp was adopted later or was used on tack or something. Frankly, both look cartoonish and cheap to me.



Truth is the Heiser stamp we are familiar with was superceded earlier in the decade. It was kept for Randall sheaths, but I speculate that Randall wanted it that way. I would bet that HKL began their corporate life with a new stamp and Mr. Randall just said no...and had his own stamp made... Heck... we KNOW that he had his own stamp made and supplied it to someone. Why is it so difficult to believe he supplied it to Heiser? Why do we have to invented some mysterious third party, or introduce Mr. Johnson four years before he actually appeared on the scene?

Still worried about the word "sample" on those sheaths? I'm not. Salesmen carry a lot of "samples" to show workmanship. They are marked to keep them from being appropriated. Ever seen a "demo" product in a store? AND it occurs to me that those sheaths could have been sample of... guess what ... the use of the Randall-Made stamp and how it would fit onto the sheaths.

This is America and you are entitled to hold to your opinions regardless of the evidence. But at some point I think you all will see that the evidence has become overwhelming and accepted by most of the community. Regards.

Ron -

look closely at the keeper snap. It is not centered on the strap with the base of the male part of the snap even visible sticking out from the strap. That being said, I am not saying it isn't 1/16" or 3/64" or whatever size larger, it may be but the photo is not clear enough for me to determine definitively.

In any case, the old snaps are in fact different irrespective of the diameter. The way the male and female fasten is different than the baby dot. So is the snaps penetration and attachment through and to the leather.





It doesn't matter "why" the HKL machine would not accept that snap. It irrelevant. He clearly states that HKL did not, could not, or whatever, use the snap. It is most likely moot anyway because HKL was pretty much out the door as a sheath supplier to RMK.




You can do as you wish but the fact remains, the Heiser Co. was not Hesier as we know it. It was the second sale of the company in about 8 years and the name had changed. That is a simple fact. No one is 100% certain as to any operations or employment changes, but it is apparent that the company was probably only making knife sheaths for RMK as a small portion of their work with saddlery, harness gear, holsters, etc. as the predominate business plan.

This begs the question, again, that I have not gotten any feedback on. What was the perspective of the HKL "conglomerate" relative to the RMK sheath business? Was it worth devoting the resources to continue? Was the company wanting or encouraging Bo to find another maker? Was the company planning of phasing out that portion of its business? All are certainly plausible but we may never know for sure.

You are surmising Bo was introduced to the Baby Dot fastener prior to Johnson but turned it down? He had already been using Heiser sheaths with a steel snap for years off and on. He didn't make the change then did he? Nope. It was not until Maurice Johnson that the change was made. So the steel snaps used by Heiser were not Baby Dot snaps and never were.

So, while the HKL steel snap was available, it was not used on knife sheaths regularly through 50's into the early 60's. It was a different snap than the Baby Dot.

Joe,

All I was saying (and it seems you agree now) is that the snaps on that 1-6 sheath are not same "Baby Dots" as the Johnson Baby Dots.

IMO the only major impact of the ownership change at Heiser for Bo was their agreement to use his stamp!

Yes, I think Bo agreed to have Heiser attach large "baby dot like" snaps to at least one sheath around 1960 and there was no discussion about "stronger" snaps at that time. Bo was only interested in getting a knife or knives to his customers at that juncture.

Any of Heiser's steel snaps were "stronger" than the BB's because of the material differences. You and I have a lot of experience with BB's. For the most part they are still as a whole functional after almost 70 years! (The real fragile snaps were the translucents). IMO the reasons Bo did not have Heiser switch to steel snaps was:
1. The marginal BB "strength" issue was not causing any consequential loss of business.
2. He didn't want to pay to tool Heiser up for a steel snap with the Randall name stamped into it. (Until HKL agreed to put the Randall stamp on the back of the sheath, there would have been no way to link a Heiser sheath to a Randall knife).

It may have been the harsher conditions of the humidity in Vietnam that prompted Bo to switch to the Baby Dots. All of his sheaths made pursuant to WWII had steel snaps and the numbers nor prolonged months of humidity weren't there for Korea.

Anyway, all food for thought and some good exchanges here! It's interesting how just one sheath coming up on e-bay can spark this kind of mental stimulation.

Joe, reading your essays convinces me that you were quite close to declaring those brown-button Heiser look-alike sheaths with the "Randall-made" stamp as "Heiser-made" years ago.

http://www.rmkcollector.com/archives/the-randall-collector/a-johnson-sheath-footnote-part-iii/

That is a darn good essay and presentation. All that was needed in my opinion was a gentle push... specifically a way to differentiate the two groups of brown-button sheaths. That has been provided now.

We now have found that one group of Brown button sheaths are identical in every respect with the Johnson baby dot sheaths. We also have another much larger group of BB sheaths that are identical in every respect with Heisers, except they have the Randall-made stamp. The two brown-button groups are different from each other in numerous ways.

Since a "Randall-made" stamp was actually manufactured and put into use in 1959... why is it difficult to accept that it would have been easy to just mail that stamp to Heiser and tell them to use it? Mr. Randall had to do that to someone in any case.

----------------------------

RE: those odd snaps. I would surmise both of those snaps were installed at the shop on a Heiser sheath that was forwarded without the hone pocket snap.

Installation of a snap into leather is not complicated nor does it require a sophisticated machine. All that is needed is a hand crimper-type tool. The factory did not usually install the keeper snap in any case. That was generally done at Randall shop after the knife was "fitted" and it was done with such a hand-tool. Heck, you can buy a tool and snap and some leather and try it yourself... it isn't difficult. (For those interested, here is a "how-to" primer with pictures.)

http://www.wikihow.com/Add-a-Snap-to-Leather

These snaps are definitely a set, but odd-ball in that they are not the baby dots adopted later. If Heiser had installed the snap on the hone pocket, it would have been necessary for the Randall shop to have an identical snap available at his shop to make the set. That is unlikely..

There are plenty of examples of mis-matched snap sets from the '59-'60 time period when the supply of brown buttons ran out. In that short period when neither party had snaps, Heiser would install one type of expedient snap on the hone pocket, and the shop would often install a different expedient snap on the keeper. (Ron has written extensively about this with lots of photo documentation in a dedicated line elsewhere)

So... my conclusion is that it is most likely that Heiser forwarded that sheath without any snaps and that Randall installed both snaps which were a temporary, possibly a one-off expedient. It is unlikely that the two shops, 1,500 miles apart had identical one-off temporary snaps available.

Regards

Thanks, Jack! Although I mentioned both sites in my earlier post, I subsequently concentrated on Heiser:

Ron -

the compression of the leather on the stone pouch of the 3-6 photo you posted could be the impression of the snap on the 1-6 sheath.

The Heiser snaps on the 1-6 sheaths are obviously steel, maybe not Baby Dots, don't know for sure.



no one knows this. It is easy to think this is what happened, but I am not so sure. Gary says no.

those early Heiser steel snaps may have been stronger in material, but not necessarily in holding power. I think that is what is meant by strength.

The conditions in Viet Nam weren't really a consideration in 62-63 imo. I think it was solely as stated above a holding power and durability thing.

Joe,

I'm pretty sure that the impression you mention is from the attach equipment. There's something unusual about those small brownish steel snaps: They've shown up primarily on 3-6 sheaths! Here are some examples:

The two I own:




Two others that have shown up on e-bay recently:







All of the associated knives have circa 1960 characteristics. The only other sheath I can remember seeing with these snaps is a 2-5:



So the question is why do we see these almost exclusively on 3-6 sheaths and not a random mix? Another "Randall mystery" to add to the collection!

Thanks for the accolades.

Johnson BB sheaths varied a bit early on. They aren't really identical to some of the BD from the immediate period thereafter. Johnson did use more than one machine whereas it appears HKL predominatley used one machine with a few odd balls thrown in. Sometimes the oddballs might actually be a Johnson as Johnson did use Heisers as examples.




It is not known to have happened. At stated in the post to Ron, Gary says no. I gotta go with that first along with there is no outstanding confirmation that Bo did do that, but it certainly is part of the discussion.

----------------------------


Why would the sheath be sent w/o stone pouch snap in place?

That would mean the shop had to have the press for those snaps. Possible, but BB's were the snap of the day and the shop was a knife making shop, not a leather fabricator.




the shop uses the hand tool type to set the keeper, while Sullivan's used the throw lever press crimper-type too. Sullivan's does not even have a hand crimper. They use a punch and a hammer if they have to "fix" one by hand.



Agree



Disagree that the sheath was sent to RMK sans stone pouch snap. That sheath had that snap put on at HKL. Now the keeper is another story. that may explain why it is so far off center.

Here is an interesting knife, possibly a contemporary to the odd-ball metal-snap sheath. It has a horizontal Randal-made stamp (possibly a marker for late '59, early '60), a metal snap on the keeper, and a brown-button plastic snap on the hone pocket that has taken black dye. Of note, the "odd-ball metal snaps" seem to have a hexagonal shape whereas this one seems to be round.

But.. this does probably confirm that Randall shop could set metal snaps into presumably Heiser-made sheaths during this time, and that metal snaps were used by the shop on occasion before the beginnning of the baby-dot era.

Yeah Jack, that would make perfect sense. HKL and previous incarnations of the company had been using metal snaps so it would make sense the shop would be able to set keepers on those as well as BB's.

Ron,

Interesting how the one sheath has no logo stamp. Notice also that the male portion is not in the middle as was pointed out earlier as being a characteristic of the Heiser sheath. One also has some not-so-Heiser looking stitching also and leather for that matter.

I have had those snaps on some earlier pieces. I will see if I have any photos hanging around.

10-4, Joe. Two have the Heiser stamp and two don't. However, all were originally punched for a center retainer placement, but the final resting place was at the far side. These are the only Heisers I've ever seen with that keeper placement position.

Looking forward to photos of sheaths with those snaps if you can fund them.

Is this a Heiser, HKL transition, or a Johnson? Anyone take a stab at who made this sheath?

I'm not sure either one did.....

...I found this old Randall online , with some interesting words's from Bo Randall.

Heiser or HKL. IMO impossible to distinguish based on the photos.

Ron the quality doesn't look like Heiser but the Keeper strap has the Heiser placement (Jack). Maybe HKL and the theory about new workers etc could explain the sloppy sheath. I dunno.

Rex -

the thing that strikes me the most is the knife is inserted into the sheath backwards.

Ron -

I am pretty sure what it is. Let's wait for some others to chime in and see what they say.

This certainly looks like either a Heiser or a HKL (I like this "HKL" nom-de-designation instead of using "Heiser-Randall stamp", or "west Ranall stamp," etc...much easier and descriptive) with Randall stamp. It has all the frontal clues but without seeing the back it would be virtually impossible to tell. I probably could tell you what it isn't though. A view of the back with stamp and stitching should be decisive.

Of interest are the brown buttons. In the photo, the button on the hone pocket appears to be almost 10 percent larger diameter than the button on the keeper. I blew it up and carefully measured units - 64 units diameter on the keeper, 69-70 units diameter on hone pocket. However, the difference might be camera angle perspective. If the diameter is indeed different, we have some new data to consider.

I would like to insert a thought here. Stockman made some sheaths about late 59-mid 60 or so, as did several other leather workers in the area from time to time (Gaddis). But, Stockman was primarily in business as a maker of fine harness and saddlery for the trotting and horsy set. My sister is a current card-carrying member of the central-florida horsy set. I assure you all that the poor-workmanship and quality that are commonly attributed to Stockman would not be tolerated by the group of central Florida customers that use horse tack. Something to consider.

Rex

That is good stuff and documented too. I've saved in in my "documented" files. Too bad we don't have a picture of the back of the sheath. The last documented knife with a Heiser stamp on the sheath I've found is in 1959. However both were combat models 1 or 14 sold by dealers.. therefore the knives could have been for sale/on display for some time. That is one reason I proposed early 1959 as the date for the switch to use of the Randall stamp.

I'm pretty sure sometime after publishing my findings, I ran accross a model-1 on line somewhere, documented shipped in late 1960 or even '61 (memory) with a Heiser stamped sheath. But, I cannot find that file now. If this mamory is accurate, then some Heiser-stamped sheaths were still being shipped when the Randall stamp had become dominant. However, that kind of overlap would be expected to occur on less popular models, which the combat blades were in '59-'61.

Buttons are the same. The pouch flap stone is closer to the lens, plus with the plastic, you can get some deformity from installation.

Frontal clues. Please expound.

Com'on Joe. We shouldn't have to laboriously recreate all the clues to sheath differentiation that have been completely explained both in this line and in the original work elsewere. Just for this time, the four main clues visual clues that differentiate "Heiser-made (either Heiser-stamped or HLK-Randall stamped) are as follows:

1. Front - position of the keeper snap in center of sheath = Heiser. Postion of keeper snap on edge of sheat = Johnson.
2. Front - deep tooling impression with ridge adjacent to stiching = Heiser.
3. Back - no stamp, horizontal Randall stamp, or West-facing Randall stamp = Heiser. East-facing Randall stamp = Johnson.
4. Back: butterfly stitching, exagerated heart shape = Heiser. Deeper single or double line penetration into "heart" = Johnson. Shallower heart shape = "Stockman."

Beside, we are do-looping. Much of this game has already been played when Gary Clinton posted these sheaths front only ... and then followed up with the backs.. proving how hard it was to differentiate Heiser-stamp, HLK w.Randall stamp, or "Stockman" for that matter. Furthermore, these pictures he posted led to the whole 100 printed-out pages of analyses that ultimately identified the stamp-orientation ddifference. Why? ... because he had included a model-1 ebony pinned-handle knife in this group that was similar to my knife, "The Magic Randall" and comparison of three ebony-handled model 1s found the key. See these pictures previously posted long ago.



Joe, pardon me, but are we talking from the same data base? Questions are good, but having to recreate the original data for every question is a waste of time. If you have a secret about that sheath, please post it with your conclusions. It can be ambush-debate tactics to ask everyone else to quantify their opinions ... but fail to post your own thoughts with a complete analysis including back-up documentation. It does not help the process in my opinion.

in those photos I want to point out some key things you may be discounting or don't see. As a caveat, don't have sheaths in hand so going by photos and can't enlarge with any clarity.

1)The RMK marked sheaths have different stitching than the Heiser marked sheaths particularly second from left. One to right seems more the similar as HHH marked sheaths.
2)The stone pouch flap lacks the tooled edge common on Heiser marked sheaths
3)The "butterfly" is different, with the tell-tale extra holes that were so common on Johnson sheaths
4)The front stitching appears to lack the "tooled" edge of the Heiser marked sheaths
5)The shape of the two RMK marked sheaths is a bit different than the HHH stamped sheaths and most noticeable in the one second from left
6)The leather of the two RMK marked sheaths appears different from front and back views.
7)The backstitching at the throat of Johnson's always seemed a bit cruder than on Heiser products.

Now without having in hand, a true assessment is difficult but some of these points made are valid. Obviously none of the sheaths from the same maker are going to be 100% exact to the next one, but there is a reason for differences beyond "normal" variations during production.

to your points:

1)Early JBB had center position. Change was made to improve holding power of "anemic" BB
2)true, why I brought it up about the two RMK stamped sheaths
3)I do not believe every HKL RMK stamp was "west facing". Perhaps the vast majority, but not all.
4)More or less but look at the two RMK sheaths relative to what you say in this point

Here are two more photos to help with the assessment of the sheath in question:

All of above... concur.

New photos = additional clues. Type 2 stamp on blade, possibly 1957 (?) to sometime in 1965 (type 1 continued into early '66). Choll=? not really qualified to address ... looks like an unusually right-angle type which was apparently short-lived very early '60s, but that opinion is base completely secondary scholorship. Bo could help answer. White print on stone, if original, would bring '62-'63 or so into play. Stone-swapping is an issue even more than sheath-swapping.

My guess now would be about 1962 HLK with west facing Randall-made sheath stamp. HOWEVER ... we should keep in mind that during this time period the Model 1 sheaths had the longest overlap of supply from Heiser than any other model.

Brown button HLK model 1 sheaths were still being shipped when most other models were being sheathed and shipped in baby dots. This is pretty well documented.

the choil is most definitely at the cusp of the change to the new grind. This change somewhat coincided with the change in sheathmakers. The white print stone was used from around 62 up through 66 or so. I highly doubt this package has been messed with.



I have never heard this about the #1 sheaths before. What is your source on which you base your statement(s)?

Ahhhhh... grasshopper... the question is for the muses.

Nahhh... remember I did all the laborious collection of data about the sheath stamps. I have a data base that is pretty huge, so big I forget where some things are.

From my previous study, IT IS MY IMPRESSION that the model 1 apparently had the largest supply of Heiser sheaths in the bins when the switch from HLK to Johnson occurred. Thus the supply of Heisers for model 1s seemed to have lasted longer into the '60s, and were being shipped even after the switch over to baby dots on other models. However, it may be all an impression, not supportable by a hard look.

If I remember correctly, the "proof" involved looking at the sheaths delivered with SS knives of different models. I noticed that ... say ... model 2s and 3s with an SS were being delivered in baby dots when some model 1 SS knives were still being shipped in brown button HLKs. or something along that line.

I tried to picture how the operation ran. My picture was ... when a knife was finished, someone took it to the sheath bin, tried a few sheaths until one was found that fit resonably well. He then installed the keeper snap, boxed and labeled it ... zoom ... out the door. It would be reasonable to have sheath model overlap if there were a large supply of sheaths for a particuler model on hand, and more coming in. I seem to remember that model 2 HLK sheaths seemed to be in especially short of supply, switch over to Johnson progressed through all varients or something ... whatever ...

I don't think that is the case Jack. While the #1 was and still is the most popular model, I do not believe there was that much of a surplus of HKL sheaths, and that there may have only been a number enough to ship some knives maybe into 63. Of course there is the possible straggler but most often in a different model than a model 1. The reason I know this is you will almost never see a model one with the shallow choil and wider ricasso in anything but a baby dot or possibly a Johnson BB.

You have to remember, Johnson was up to full production in 5-6 months and HKL was already done. They were done in 62. So, if there was 50 HKL #1 sheaths in stock, they were gone in a matter of months. Johnson was already making BB sheaths, so you were apt to get that during the time frame going into 63.

Joe, my memory may well be faulty and perhaps it was a different model.

Now that I think about it, I do remember you showing two sheaths, one a Heiser and one a brown button Johnson, both model 1s. And certainly one of the ebony handled knives model 1 in the original comparison that launched the whole thing was sheathed in a Johnson brown button.

So .. I retract the statement. Let me re-look at the old info and see if anything can be gleaned from this blind alley. Thanks, regards.

Now to the sheath in question.

First, it is a Johnson, an early BB. The stitching, the butterfly, the backstitching on the throat, the lack of edge tooling, and lastly, a very important trait I was hoping someone picked up on but didn't, the leather. The type(tan) of leather first, and secondly the mottling in the leather. A Johnson trait all the way.

One more thing to look at, and that is the belt loop. It is that "heavier" Johnson leather that makes them bow out like that.

Here are the last two photos:

Beg to differ Joe.

The stitching on the butterfly does indeed look Johnson-esque. But all the other key features say HKL. No Johnson brown button I've seen has a stamp that faces in that direction, or was made with a center keeper snap, etc. Except for one outlier, Johnson brown buttons I've found had no model numbers, only the Randall stamp facing east.

Plus the age of the knife would have to call the Johnson era into question would it not? Trying to make that knife fit the 1963 time period would cheat the knife of some of its early life, or require a "magic Randall" type story of re-sheathing, or old blade laying around for a couple of years before sheathing and shipping.

Actually, the back is exactly like I thought it would be. Not saying your other points are not valid or a consideration, it's just that the major cosmetics and construction characteristics are dead ringers for HKL. This is backed by a very large data base that is available in detail in this line. Gary Clinton alone said he looked at over 50 of his knives and all but one fit the thesis.

Indeed it is the whole point of this line. To accept your list of characteristics and ignore the other major ones would defeat the whole discovery of the differences. It would throw the whole HKL/Johnson grand unification back into chaos. Sorry... no go. You have not made a case for the characteristics you listed ... including pictures etc. It is simply a statement of a set of assumptions without any backup. Those assumptions are from the old world of abrakadabra...and the belief that all raw leather sheets comes in the same color, thickness, and other characteristics.

Here are the poster children for a proto-typical HKL (on left) and an example of the fairly rare Johnson brown button on right. You should recognize these LOL... they are yours!



There is an interesting point about the stitching of the early Johnson sheaths that could be entertaining here. But first things first. No, that isn't a Johnson brown button sheath in my opinion. Regards

Well, we will agree to disagree.

It is not just the stitching on the butterfly, but the front of the sheath. Totally different, no edge tooling. Not the same.

That leather is not HKL leather. That sheath looks nothing like a Hesier/HKL. You put one next to it and it ain't the same, not like the sheaths we have been talking about.

The knife, stone, and sheath package is exactly that, and all pointing to the beginning of the Johnson period.

If you are hanging your hat on the snap position, not gonna fly. Hunt was correct that Johnson did make Heiser(HKL) copies early on. Those are what he used as examples. Johnson put the snap in the same place on some of his early stuff until he determined they weren't that good. Hence the change in snap location and ultimately the switch to the BD's.

You are very adamant about what the HKL sheaths are Jack, so if this is not a Johnson BB to you, albeit and early one, perhaps you can show what you think one is.

ADDED:

The photo of my sheaths above, the one on the left, the HKL we will say, looks like a Heiser, edge tooling on the front and all. The sheath that started this little conversation does not look like it. To say that it does is intellectually dishonest. Save for the snap location, nothing is the same.

One other thing I forgot to mention is the typical Heiser throat flare which is also absent from the sheath that started the conversation. Not to mention it was cut with a completely different die and a completely different shape than the Heiser/HKL.

The LH black sheath was documented to mid-late 63 IIRC.

In the end Jack, what you are looking at is an early Johnson, and the reason I presented this sheath the way I did, in stages, was to see what people said with limited information.

It worked out pretty much the way I thought it would with some sticking to their guns w/o looking at the subtleties. Once you sit back and examine it with the points I have brought up, I think it is relatively clear.

Good discussion.

That is fine Joe. You're perfectly free to believe whatever your assumptions are. But you have not addressed the key findings of the orientation of the stamp and the presence of model numbers, much less shown other alleged Johnsons with a center snap keeper etc.

Why would Johnson make sheaths with the stamp facing west with model numbers and center snap etc., then suddenly change, and begin stamping all his sheaths with the stamp facing east and omit the model numbers? Answer.. unlikely, and the data of hundreds of sheath examples supports the position that he did not do that weird thing.

I've posted a ton of backup data for this position and many others have added a lot of weight and examples. Thus far, you have posted only an opinion, with no backup or examples. You've taken one sheath, thrown out some strange characteristics and declared them to be "Johnson." That is not science nor an investigation nor a presentation of a thesis. Nor in my opinion does it add much to the knowledge base.

But this is America, you can hold your position though I don't quite know what it is other than "ask Joe if it is a Johnson." In any case, I suspect it is going to get pretty lonely out on that desert island with all those Heiser-look-alike Randall stamped Johnson sheaths. Regards.

By the way... any interest in a certain unusual feature of early Johnson stitching I mentioned before? Oh, nevermind...

I dunno Jack. Maybe the copies Maurice was making was right down to the orientation of the sheath stamp. Maybe he laid them out differently. Maybe later as his production increased that changed the orientation. Maybe one of the guys working for him changed it. Maybe he just did it because he wanted to. I don't really know, nor really care.



This conversation started Jack with an example, and example of an early Johnson. Let me "throw out the strange characteristics" that I declared to be Johnson. Let's do a review:

1. Leather type
2. Leather mottling
3. Stitching on front
4. Stitching on butterfly
5. Lack of edge tooling
6. Different die used to cut sheath
7. Lack of throat flair

Those items are meat and potatoes Jack, not "Johnson-esque", but Johnson. Perhaps that is what happens when you are the new guy on the block and using the old guys product as a guide i.e. stamp orientation and snap placement. That is it Jack, that is all you have my friend.



Yep, it is America, and I am gonna hold my position because I know I am right on this one. I can say this, on that desert island where you presume I reside, the isolation does get tough, but also provides me time. Time to have owned, examined, photographed, studied, handled, researched, seen, and fondled more RMK's than you could ever hope to in a lifetime. I have spoken to more collectors, shop employees, older and newer, have attended more shows, contributed to more publications on the subject, and written more articles than most ever will.

I am in no way trying to discourage your efforts, but you kinda remind me of another fella that approached this thing some years ago in the same fashion and he too alienated folks. He also made a valiant effort but unfortunately fell short. I don't want to see you fall short too Jack.

While your contribution is appreciated, and you have contributed, to disregard the facts as listed above and rely solely on traits that can be variable (stamp orientation and snap location) is not solid practice, and dare I say it, is not science nor an investigation nor a presentation of a thesis. Nor in my opinion does it add much to the knowledge base.

By the way, you are 100% certain that Johnson never made a lift-a-dot sheath, right? Oh never mind.........

Joe,

What you're overlooking or ignoring is that Heiser, HKL and Johnson all had different sheath workers, sewing machines, patterns (Heiser & HKL for sure) and leather lots. Constistency was not maintained over time. Let's address all your "evidence":

1. Leather type: No different than many known Heisers (As I mentioned, each company had different leather lots that varied in condition irrespective of the tanning process. I've seen the most inconsistence with Heiser / HKL).
2. Leather mottling: Heiser had it too! Look at my photos below.
3. Stitching on the front: I see no difference between the stitching on your example sheath and a number of known Heisers!
4. Stitching on the butterfly: Ditto!
5. Lack of edge tooling: Oh it's there if you look hard enough! You just picked a sample with a weak impression.
6. Different die to cur sheath: I addressed this above. Also, the two 3-6 sheaths below are not cut from the same die many others were (I should know).
7. Lack of throat flairs: For the most part those went away in the early 50's. Again, look at my examples below: See any throat flares?

All I can see you doing is grasping at straws! There is too much real evidence out there to support the theory you're trying to tear down (i.e. the e-bay Heiser auction and the consistency of the snap placement between Heiser-HKL and Johnson.

We had an exchange on this thread back on May 8th 2013!. At that time I couldn't figure out why you took the position you did because I know your a smart guy. Your response was " I have never said Heiser did not make the sheaths, and in fact am aligned with what the 'preponderance" of evidence suggests. I even called it in print BEFORE you or anyone else jumped on the bandwagon. It wasn't until the sample sheath auction that you guys jumped on and made an issue of it."

Now we're re-hashing it again! Unbelievable!

Really? So Hesier used multiple machines? You are a smart guy too Ron, but this is a new tidbit seemingly created to support your position. Hesier had been consistent for almost two decades to this point with most real changes occurring in the 40's. Now with the second sale of the company in 1958, there could have been changes. Hard to say, but look at the sheath on the left that Jack posted. Pattern looks pretty much the same as a sheath made in the late 40's early 50's save for the stone pouch flap, throat rivets, etc. Fact.

Hieser's leather was not only of finer finish than Johnson's on the whole, they generally maintained that for the same time period.

A footnote here, is that Johnson leather is closer to Moore than Heiser in heft. Just seems thicker. This may have something to do with geography with both makers residing in central Florida and the sourcing of hides. I am going to speculate with my uncanny powers of observation, that back in the day, Johnson did not source hides from the same tanneries as Hesier/HKL.



Ok, let us address this one sheath, which is how this started. First and foremost I will review the points again.

1. Ron you are a smart guy too and have seen many knives, and many Johnson sheaths. Now while you have focused on much earlier pieces, you know better. You mean to tell me that when you look at the #1 sheath that you don't see Johnson leather?!?! Seriously?!? C'mon man, I am losing you.
2. Not the same Ron. You can look at Johnson sheaths from the early 60's thru the 80's and see the exact same mottling as the sheath in question. Exact. Look at the front side of the belt loop. So Johnson. Not saying you won't find a Heiser with mottling, but not like the Johnson. Now I better qualify this by saying of course not all Johnson's have the mottling but it is consistent over the years.
3. I am again gonna go with seriously?!?!? No difference?
4. To use Jack's terminology, it is "Johnson-esque". Guess that means something.
5. So now I gotta look for it.
6. Probably early on Ron from the 40's period, but through the 50's these sheaths were pretty consistent. Edge finishing can slightly alter the appearance from one sheath to another, but not the overall appearance of size and shape where it is a departure from what you consider the "pattern".
7. Again, see the sheath in the photo Jack posted. Plenty of flair there. Doesn't appear it went away in the 50's.



No straws, just looking at a #1 sheath that has all the characteristics of an early Johnson, and like Jack, you are hanging your hat on stamp orientation and snap location.

Let me ask you something Ron. If somebody asked you to make a widgit, and handed you one to use as an example, would you attempt to copy it? Of course you would because more than likely you would have been directed to do so. So when Johnson had Heiser sheaths as an example, did he attempt to copy them? Of course he did, to include snap location, and maybe stamp orientation, at least initially. To think he had some sort of divine vision back in 62 and decided he was gonna relocate the snap towards the edge on his first examples is somewhat of a reach. I highly doubt when he first sat down to make some sheaths a ray of light shown upon him and he said "Oh shit, I need to move the snap!" I don't think it took him long to do so though, as it didn't take him too much longer to suggest the Baby Dot's.



Not re-hashing anything at all. You are using a blanket to cover that every early 60's BB is an HKL sheath. That is what is unbelievable. That is the same premise (it was easier) we used initially 12 -15 years ago considering all sheaths with the RMK stamp a Johnson.

Show me what YOU consider a Johnson, an EARLY Johnson BB. I presented one sheath for discussion, one that fits the bill perfectly for an early Johnson, even supported by the blade grind and stone supplied. So far I haven't seen it from Jack. Perhaps you can come up with an example. Maybe one that may be questionable in your mind. Don't get hung up on stamp orientation and snap placement.

Finally, the black #1 sheath pictured has the same orientation of stamp as the one next to it. Waaaaaaaaaa? It is a LH sheath. What that tells me is that Johnson for the most part laid out his product differently when it was stamped, not some grand decision to be different. Maybe he was left handed. Yeah that is it.

Joe,

We can sit at our computers all day and night debating the minutiae of a single sheath you posted, but there are much bigger fish to fry: How do you explain the gap between the sheaths documented going back to 1960 with the Randall stamp on the back and Gary finding Johnson in 1962? We're not talking a few sheaths or even a few hundred sheaths but thousands of sheaths! And we not talking a few weeks or a few months gap but a few years! You know Gary pretty well: Why don't you give him a call and ask him if he thinks he made a mistake about the timing of finding Johnson by a few years and let us know what he says!

Here's photos of my earliest Johnson BB sheath. Note:

1. The stitching difference between it and the many West facing logo BB sheaths.
2. The keeper placement.
3. The East facing logo.
4. The lack of edge tooling on the sides of the sheath.

A lot of people are going to be looking back at this thread for a long time. For the life of me, I don't know how you can put your reputation on the line as the new "Randall Authenticator" over an issue that is a no brainer based on the evidence that has been presented in this thread!

ron, the construction of the little sheath you posted looks far more like the 1-8 sheath that started this discussion than the prototypical HKL sheath which is the tan one on the left that jack posted. From the frontal view, the ONLY real difference is snap placement which I asked you not to get hung up on by the way.

From the rear the ONLY difference is stamp orientation which I asked you not to get hung up on by the way.

I wanted you to look at this sheath w/o consideration of those two factors for a minute. Didn't happen.

So that is it Ron. You and Jack base your whole opinion on the 1-8 sheath in question on those two traits, and completely disregard any other points brought up to make the case as though they don't exist, or deny that there is any possiblity that some or all of the points made have merit. How about the throat flair that "disappeared in the 50's" on the sheath posted by Jack? All I hear is crickets.

So you are in essence doing the very same thing (as stated previously) the "card-carrying collectors" initially did with the RMK stamp saying all of them were Johnson's. You are saying every "west" facing RMK brown button is an HKL sheath. Every BB center snap sheath is a Heiser/HKL.

You guys foolishly think that there is a line or date when Maurice Johnson started to make sheaths and immediately, the first day, heck, the first hour, made these two changes. Like there was some conscious effort on his part acknowledging "If I put the snap towards the edge and flip the orientation of the stamp, people will know these were made by me and not Heiser".

Who knows, the 1-8 could be one of the first ones he made. I can't say. I can say this though with relative certainty, that is NOT Heiser/HKL leather from what I see.

I don't know why you are bringing up "all the sheaths documented going back to 1960.........." Who said anything about those sheaths? They aren't even part of the debate because there is no debate there. I am talking about this single 1-8 sheath and wanted opinions on what it was. That is why I brought it up in the first place, because of the Johnson traits I saw.

Then I get this barrage of not only amateurish but somewhat condescending rhetoric about desert islands and my reputation. For the guy that came on the forum within the last week with the kumbaya reconciliation and can't we all just get along mantra, I find it surprisingly hypocritical. Disappointing.

I will put it out there my friend, because I think it is exactly what I say it is. An early example, maybe one of the first Johnson BB sheaths to be identified as such. Of course a hands on examination would be best and the possibility of me changing my mind although somewhat remote could happen. I guess it is a no brainer to think I could expect the same from you at this point, so while not ideal, the photos will have to do.

The stitching, Joe the stitching!

No matter. I've been doing some thinking (Yeah I know that's dangerous):

After agreeing on all the evidence a year and a half ago, why would Joe bring up a sheath that is obviously a Heiser and attempt to make a case that's it's an early Johnson?

There's only one scenario that makes sense because like I say you're a smart guy: Gary won't agree to let you authenticate a BB sheath with center keeper position and West facing logo as Heiser or HKL made and you are trying to pave the way to justify your certification that it's a Johnson sheath!

If that's the case, then I'm going to give you a pass and state this for Gary's benefit. If it is not the case, then I'm stating it for yours:

The market puts a premium on Heiser vs. Johnson sheaths. If a customer's authentication states "Johnson sheath" in these cases, then your going to be doing them a dis-service in terms of market value! Market value aside, the most important thing is the accuracy of Randall history!

So.......... the question is: Are you going to be authenticating any BB sheaths with center keeper and West facing logos as HKL sheaths?

Whisky Tango Foxtrot?

I should have anticipated a reply like that.

This is an awesome thread, it really is. It has a lot of great research and discussion.


I admire the passion, but it may be time to agree to disagree before something is said that could do damage.

Thanks,

I had to, it was just too good to pass up.




I will send you a shovel, actually, a CAT 18 ACERT is probably what is called for to dig your way out of this one.

The hole is in the eye of the beholder, Joe.

I love the discussion, keep it going. I am learing alot.

Pap

Have much more to discuss, but ...no, ... I've had enough of this on this board. The disconnect with reality and the delusions seem to be getting worse ... Joe, you need some serious help. You should see the E-mails I'm getting ... people are laughing.

Honestly, do you really want to be another Beaucamp? ... Do you really believe you have the status that you can just declare something-anything, with no backup, no discussion, no examples, no justification and no background ... and people are supposed to just believe it? My friend, your credibility is crashing and you cannot even see it.

You apparently have a nice collection. Good for you.

There are some interesting things to discuss and I would like to reveal some interesting mysteries about Johnson sheath stitching. But I've had enough here, for now. There are other venues. Ciao

There are many reasons why Gary, Jason and myself made the decision to ASK Joe to become the Randall Authenticator for us, Number One being that we believe him to be almost unmatched in his knowledge and passion for the older RMK's. And for some forumites to blatantly question his integrity or question his "reality" and make a suggestion for him to get help and yet refer to him as a pompous ass because of disagreements with you is well beyond the personal attacks that I would take. And since you brought the emails up, I can't BEGIN to tell you of the emails AND phone calls about you either sir. Hate to lose all this knowledge coming through you though. Damn shame this thread had to go this way...I loved it, even the disagreements were informative!

---DW--

Bless you Scott. You have not been party to some of the things.. nor have you commented ... nor have you acted out of sorts or called people names.

But I don't come on a chat board to fight, I come to discuss. This "discussion" turned upside down in the most bizarre way imaginable, and it wasn't me who knocked over the chess pieces. I post facts, back up my opinions with data, pictures and example. When I use other's photos, ideas or words, I credit them. I don't disparage, I don't present myself as an expert who expects to be believed without question. There is only one of those type "experts" in the universe and it isn't me.

Knowledge is one thing but it is useless without humility, an open mind, a respect for others, and a willingness to listen and share. Hope you and the shop have learned some new things and are willing to consider the depth of an argument. If not, it isn't my issue.

Regards, thanks for your compliments.

PS: A lot of doors have "hit me in the ass" in my 70 years of life, especially beginning in Vietnam, going through the investigation of the Micondo blowout offshore ... but I've never said those words to anyone. I wonder if you should reconsider your use of that phrase?

Knowledge is one thing but it is useless without humility, an open mind, a respect for others, and a willingness to listen and share.

AMEN.

Yes, in all due respect I do withdraw my comments and apologize sir, I would hate for you to leave us, even Joe has complimented your vast knowledge importance to this forum...Stick around Jack, there's too much that we need to gleen from your research.

With now only 2 employees with 30+ years of service, we at RMK in no way can answer all the questions that arise. There is not a day goes by that we don't send a caller to these forums to ask the questions that we simply no longer have the knowledge to answer.

---DW---

Why thank you Scott.



Much of this is true, and I did allow my frustration with a do-loop circular argument to overload and I do apologize. Just to correct the record though, I've never referred to Joe as "pompous."

I have learned from all of the comments/posts made on the threads. I also know that people are passionate about their Randall knives and related hardware. They all want the RIGHT information to be passed on to other members.

I also realize that there are always exceptions to every rule.

And that people do not always acknowledge the existence of some items made by Randall over the years. Why, I am not sure but it does happen.

So rarely will you get the whole story on a given Knife or Sheath. Or a Roman Short Sword, (one of several) that did not exist but later was sold for a large amount of money.

Just saying. I enjoy all of the posts on this forum.

Tom Vaught

I've told this story before; my first Randall was a Model #1-6", carbon, stag and alum/nut with brass hilt, Michael R. Allen etched, bought in 1967. My brother was living in Tampa and when I would go visit him, sometimes I would go to the shop. On or about 1978, I took my #1 to the shop to get sharpened and Pete asked me if I wanted my sheath rivited, and I said yes. He disappeared around the corner and brought it back with rivits.It was the same sheath as I had dyed it cordavan soon after originally getting it. In 1993, I was under some financial difficulties and I sold that Randall and 2 others to Rhett. A few years later when I was back on my feet, I called Rhett and asked him if he still had my Model 1 and he looked it up and said he sold it soon after he received it from me. So, my Model 1 is out there somewhere and it includes my catalog and envelope from which I made my order. If anyone finds it or has it, I will pay whatever to get it back, plus you can see the sheath as well.

Pap

Thanks Mike for your story, as it is most applicable to this debate (?).

Jack, in all your learned studies & fanciful writings, have you occasioned the principle of Occam's Razor? It's a very old principle that may be applied to many fields. Simply stated, the principle states if there are variables that can not be known, theories that may be introduced (whether reasonable or not) but can not be proven, unknowns that can not be known -the simplest answer is the correct one.

In our case, there are to many variables, Mikes anecdote being a good example. Blades stamped and not handled for, sometimes, years in the future or unknown sheath makers yet to surface as examples. We may speculate, or one could say theorize, until the cows come home -it does not make fact. Again, Occam's Razor, the simplest answer is the correct one. Heiser marked is Heiser -Johnson is Johnson. These old knives can not be pigeon-holed, just too many variables, lost history and the nature of the handmade product.

Not to mention, I'll go out on a limb and state, none here are writing a Thesis on Randall Made Knives. This is an advocation and as such, enjoyable. Too much of the minutae detracts from same.

The overall characteristics of the piece, to the seasoned collector, are sufficient to date the knife within a proper date range -all that's necessary, period.

Jack and Ron -

Please explain this one for me. I know it holds a special place for you Ron being a 3-6, the same as the examples you have provided thus far, so it should be relatively easy for you.

Joe,

We apparently haven't gotten off dead center yet. How about you answer my question and then I'll answer yours:

Neither has that snap!

In no uncertain terms, what I authenticate has absolutely nothing to do with this thread and is simply a distraction. Not to worry, but if you would like to start another thread on authentications, I invite you to do so.

So let's not waste any more time, focus, and cut to the chase on sheath #2.

Hopefully Jack will join you on this one also so the forumites can realize the full advantage of all the participants joining in the discussion.

I think I'm going to pass on this one, Joe. Thanks anyway.

Why ron, why would you pass on this one? It is open for discussion like (what we will call) sheath #1, which you did so with great fervor.

I think in the interest of furthering knowledge here for the members it is incumbent of you to comment.

I'll tell you why, Joe: If you're still putting a label of Johnson on that 1-8 sheath, then I really don't care to have any further discussions with you about sheaths. It would be an absolute waste of my time.

Oh, I see. While I am reasonably sure the 1-8 could be a Johnson, I can't say 100%, especially w/o a hands on examination, you are not willing to offer the same consideration that it only could be a Heiser. You are adamant about it because of the snap location and stamp orientation only as though it is an absolute. Nothing else presented to the contrary is even considered. You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that maybe you do see why I might think what I think.

You should come clean, this second sheath scares ya. Rather than give your opinion on it, and risk possibly being forced to concede that I made some valid points, you are gonna use a lame excuse to withdraw from participation. Shame.

What started out as a decent discussion deteriorated into a pack of wolves mentality with you and Jack over what, a difference of opinion on a sheath?!! Seriously?

Well it looks as though I can continue to present information w/o our two most vocal detractors electing to bow out for reasons unknown, well not really, I think we all know why.

But you did say it with 100% certainty multiple times:








Your subsequent "disclaimer" was pathetic:



And you're using the term lame with me?

That's it, Joe. Find yourself another participant.

"...learned and fanciful..." hummmm. Sir, I suggest that perhaps you review what the term "Occum's Razor" means and how it is applied.

Tell me ... which is the "simplest" of these two arguments:

1. - "Heiser made all the sheaths that look like a known Heiser including those stamped 'Randall;'
- Johnsons made all the sheaths that look like a known 'Johnson;'
- Heiser did not make sheaths that look like Johnson because there are no such documented sheaths or supporting documents and research;
- Johnson did not make sheaths that look like Heiser's because there are no documented sheaths of that type, or supporting documents or research;
- nor are there any such sheaths that fit the historical timing of Mr. Johnson's sheath making...

"...Furthermore this thesis of 'Heiser's are Heiser and Johnson's are Johnson' fits the known history of Mr. Johnson. And, it is backed up by voluminous data including multiple pictures of documented knives, etc."

or

2. -"Heiser made the sheaths that are stamped "Heiser,"
- Johnson made the sheaths that look just like Heiser's but are stamped Randall.
- but at the same time, Johnson also made sheaths that didn't look like Heiser's but did look like later Johnsons.
- it does not matter that believing the reality of this strange set of behaviors requires introducing Johnson-made sheaths years before the historical record says he started making sheaths for Randall...

"...That's ok because the only way to tell if the sheaths that look like Heiser's but were made by Johnson is to ask Joe. Joe says that he is the one who can tell what Johnson made and Johnson made sheaths that looked like Heiser's and had no resemblance to his other sheaths, years before anyone thought he was making sheaths."

Mr. Rigid54 (no name?), you seem to have picked door number two for the application of "Occum's Razor." I wonder.. could you be wrong about what constitutes "Occum's Razor?" Could you be wrong about which of the above arguments satisfies the philosophic requirement to pick the simplest answer?

I look forward to more of your "learned and fanciful" posts about historical Randalls, sheaths, blade stamps, coolie caps, escutcheon plates, Delrin handles, etc., that include extensive documentation, examples, pictures, footnote references to written and personal accounts, and that are matched to historical data records. Then perhaps I could more accurately provide focused commentary.

By the way... in this case identifying the period does make a difference as has been discussed MANY times. Trying to squeeze hundreds of brown button sheaths into the Johnson-made time frame has distorted the historical record and caused a great many knives to be misidentified and mis-dated. And this has further warped identifying the historical records both before and after this period. It is readily seen in virtually any book about Randalls.

This will be short and sweet because arguing with 5 year old children is a waste of time. The adult reasons, the 5-year old sticks his fingers in his ears, jumps up and down, and screams "nah nah nah I can't hear you." Some people just don't seem to have the knack of discussion as a learning tool.

Joe... this is simple. You are talking in circles and have added nothing at all of substance in this line except smoke. Comprende? Huge amounts of data, including commentary, documented knives, pictures, references, contributions by other major collectors such as Gary Clinton, who laboriously went through their collections and added commentary confirming theses, etc. have been posted. And much much more.

All that massive collection of data supports the conclusions which provide an easy way to distinguish between Heiser and Johnson. This vastly simplifies the historical record and finally makes sense of what had been a period of serious contradictions and distortions. It is not required that one accept the conclusions, but it is required that they acknowledge the effect of the data, which changed the starting point of any discussion. You cannot seem to bring yourself to do even that... can you? So ....

Suddenly, out of the blue with no indication of where any of it came from, you post this about Johnson sheath characteristics:

1. Leather type
2. Leather mottling
3. Stitching on front

5. Lack of edge tooling
6. Different die used to cut sheath
7. Lack of throat flair

You have not posted a single documented, illustrated example, any backup data, any references that show these ... "features (?)" are associated with all or most Johnson's, or are unique to Johnson leather sheaths.

In short, this is just off-the-wall, obstructionist and ignorant BS. Are you next going to claim that "Johnson sheaths have an orange-color complexion" or some other just made-up characteristic? that you expect others to take seriously? Who the heck do you think you are? I'm through with you.

If Randall Knives is counting on you, and you ...

(a) "authenticate" Heiser look-alike sheaths such as you posted, calling them "Johnsons," (b) based on so-called pulled-out-of-a-hat features such as above; ... well ... I feel sorry for Randall's credibility. Credibility has a fungible quality. Like printed money it needs a sober hand on the press or..... Caveat Emptor... Unfortunately, I think I detect hyper-inflation on the horizon of the world of "authenticating."

Jack, the Razor states the "burden of proof" is on you.

Prove your theory with facts, i.e.; correspondence with Heiser, correspondence with the stamp manufacturer, shipping bill of ladings, receipts, etc., or drop it. Simple, really.

Otherwise, as stated, too much lost history, variables that can not be known and, most importantly, information and statements from Randall Made Knives to the contrary.

Will either Ron, Jack, or both comment on the #3 sheath with the Baby Dot snaps?

That is the only thing that matters at this point. Comprende?

You both are running from that like a hooker leaving church on Sunday.

Every forum member is anxiously awaiting your critique.

I will address the other drivel later. Maybe.

Folks, this thread is not getting better.

There is a lot of evidence, discussion, and opinion in this thread..... most of it really good.

I would appreciate it if we could steer clear of any additional evaluations of anyone's credibility or reputation.

Keep it on topic or I will lock it.

Thank you,

I agree with Mitchell here. I think the world of Ron, Jack, and Joe. I have learned so much from these guys and have done deals with Ron and Joe. As my kid says....you guys are the bomb when it comes to Randall's. Let's get this back on track. We need all of you here!
Ronnie(the peace maker)

Rigid, the use Occum's Razor in philosophy has nothing at all to do with proof. You do not apparently know what you are talking about in your use of that term. Frankly, my suggestion is stay away from philosophy unless you are a student or involved in using those principals routinely in your day job, as I must do. Honestly, stick to knives...

Regarding your "...simple really" phrase, we have proved our case in great detail. It is circumstantial proof, but overwhelming proof nevertheless. If you do not know the basis of the case that has been presented, then I assume you have probably not read the presentation here, or the much more detailed presentation of the case elsewhere on the internet.

The contrary assumption that Johnson made those Randall-stamped, Heiser look-alike sheaths, long before he was known to be making sheaths, is the fanciful argument. Oddly, there was never a formal case made for that amazing assumption, never in time, ever. But if you would like to make such a case, publish analogs, offer proof, or even a decent, logical argument that Johnson made all those sheaths in 1959-60-61, I'll be glad to consider it.

The burden of proof is on that argument, not the one favored by the overwhelming evidence that has already been presented.

My question to you ... If you have not read the case that has been carefully put together, meticulously documented, and can't address it's fundamental points, why are you negatively involved here? I don't recall you offering examples or pitching in with help when the case was first being critically examined (but perhaps you did, in which case I apologize for my error). But many other collectors were involved. They did pitch in, as questions, offer examples, checked out timing, etc., using knives from their private collections, etc. So... perhaps you will understand when I ask..what is your point here?

Mitchell -

I also think it is time that we have some intelligent discussion about these sheaths.

I have to go on record though stating I did not intend for this thread to turn into what it became. I think I tried to maintain some civility while under attack, actually, I did a damn good job considering what I would normally do. I did so because I wanted to get some involvement from the members here. With the tone of "contributions" from certain parties, I am not surprised we didn't.

For the umpteenth time, I presented a sheath that had what I called or better yet I will use Jack's term had "Johnson-esque" characteristics. Those characteristics led me to believe that there was more than a better chance it could be an early Johnson BB. I still believe that. While Ron (and Jack) wants to take cheap shots, he forgets, that I make only opinions with varying degrees of certainty using photographs. Historically you can look at anything I have said using photos only, and it is always with the caveat of a hands on evaluation. Nevertheless as you can see from his most recent post above, he tactfully removed only a portion of the paragraph from an earlier post of mine in what I can only conclude was a feeble effort to discredit me in some fashion. Epic fail.

Here is the exchange in Ron's "edited" version:




This is the full paragraph with the portion Ron used highlighted:



Sounds a bit different with the full text.

Now to the sheaths. While I believe the 1-8 sheath that started the discussion has many traits that appear to be Johnson, I also presented sheath #2 and have yet to receive a comment or question from anyone - Jack? Are you out there? Jaaaaaaack!

I think this sheath is interesting for obvious reasons and here is a second photo:

"I thought I was out and and then they pull me back in"

I wanted to move on to the sheaths but......................................



Jack, for a guy that espouses his investigative and research skills to be unsurpassed, apparently you were less than successful in your attempt at the Evelyn Wood speed reading course!

The underlined portion in your post above where you again are somewhat trite in your response to a members post, has been covered in this thread at least two times. For those that missed it, here it is again:

WE DIDN'T FRIGGIN CAAAAAARE!



The only thing hyper-inflated here Jack is your ego. Did you get picked on as a kid?

This is getting old. Where's the Mod's

This thread is now locked.