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.