OK guys, this is about those nasty sheaths. If you don't want to read about it, I respectfully ask you to move on to another thread. Read at your own risk!


OK, well, a pretty eventful night. I was mindin'my own business, when Joe Dorsky "innocently" took a shot across the bow, by making a comment:



Why I ask, would any honest, well researched subject be haunting?

Joe, I do respectfully ask you to respect the work of other people in this forum. To make a statement like the above is a barely disguised attempt to marginalize opinions that differ from your own.

If it has dragged on and began to haunt you, it may be because I have hounded you to debunk MY observations. Of which you have skillfully tapdanced around like a seasoned politician.

I would have given it up long ago, had you proved me wrong.

Heck, I must have influenced you in some way, you dedicated 2 of the 22 points to my number stamp observations, so apparently it has some importance.

Yet you marginalize it by saying its a non issue.

I made a statement on the other thread that I would like to experiment with.

In case you missed it, here it is:

You know, you asked me on another thread to not look at the back of the sheath for identification. I think I can reasonably do that now Joe. I do believe I can descern a Heiser or Heiser/HKL west and horizontal, from a Johnson east RMK.

I would like to engage you in that. I will make it easy on you. Block out the snap so I can't make an easy observation.

If you choose to engage me, make sure the photos are clear and front on.

What say you? I'm putting it on the line here Joe.

Okay Men we have the venue and will start selling tickets for the 'Sheath Fight to the Finish Cage Match' in Atlanta!

Tom Flynn

Funny stuff Tom.

I am afraid that will not happen.
Joe wanted to get started early and asked a question about Capt Chris' sheath. I answered him, then asked him a question.

The thread was locked down, and nothing from Joe....

Part of what happens when someone tries to marginalize a observation is to ignore it, hoping that it goes away.

I was perfectly happy, letting it all lie, then Mr Dorsky tried to further trivialize the observations with his statement:



The topic had nothing to do with the sheaths in this thread Re: "Historical" ? King Faisal II Randall Knives

Those innocent looking statements are a way to attempt to marginalize.

They probably do haunt Joe, because he can't dispute them head on, so he tapdances around them.

I await good fact backed debate. I don't think it will happen.

You see, Joe was happy years ago with the decision to lump the early RMK sheaths all together because he obviously didn't consider these observations that would have distinguished clearly and concisely.

Tom, I am afraid this thread will die, as my others did. They will say its because its a non issue, or the debate is over....that's the Tapdance I refer to

Sam,

I talked to the guy with the cage and we can have it for a doubleheader match to follow the Sheath's Fight to the Finish Cage Match with the "Historical" ? King Faisal II Randall Knives Fight to the Finish Cage Match.

Tom Flynn

As I don't think the challenge will be accepted by Joe, perhaps we can do something different.

How about a question and answer session? One question at a time. Very simple, I will even give Joe the first crack.

He can ask me a question about early RMK
Sheath identification, then I will answer as breifly and concisely as I can.

Then I will ask him a question, and he could do likewise.

No editorializing, that's what has gotten us in this long, drawn out mess in the first place. Question, then answer, followed by the next question in turn

Who knows, maybe we will get somewhere with it.

What do you think Joe?

Unfortunately Tom, I do not think Blade will work, too many people would miss it. I like the record being made here.
I would definitely like to talk about it at blade.

Sam,
It was "not" an order, rather a suggestion. I think it a good suggestion at that. I have elected to stay out of all of this, because I think all of it has run it's course. I am planning to bring a couple of JRB's to Blade. Hope to see you there.
Keep it civil, Capt. Chris

No problem Capt Chris. Very good suggestion. I was playing on your title Capt. As in "an order from the Captain." Nothing at all implied. Trying to keep it light:-)

As to the civil part, I am always civil. I have all the respect in the world for everyone in this forum. This is all about the facts. I have never, nor will I ever take it personal.

With that being said, I will also not let sideways references to my opinion go unnoticed. Joes "haunting" statement brought me back into this.

If you bring JRB's with you that are in this gray 60-63 area Cap, then bring provenance that ties it absolutely to Johnson.

You are in a predicament Cap. On the one hand you support Gary Randall's claim that Heiser never had a stamp. I totally understand that loyalty. Its from the top.

But then we have the obvious problem that Gary also stated that he did not find Maurice Johnson until 1962. Rut-Roh! If ya believe that also, then ya have to explain who made all those hundreds of sheaths from 60-62.

We already have Gary Clinton's provenance knives dating to 1960 that have the west and horizontal stamp, with serif numbers, with no edge bevel.

Where is the provenance that Johnson made west or horizontal sheaths with serif numbers and edge bevel?

If you intend to show me RMK sheaths that are west or horizontally stamped, with serif numbers, with no edge beveling, I think you will have a most difficult time convincing me that it is a Johnson.

Its all about the visible handmade traits Cap.

Heiser used their traditional heiser stamp oriented horizontally, as they always had, then they oriented the new RMK stamp horizontally, then changed to vertical west facing. All the while, using serif number stamps. Joe lays this out in his timeline.

An added feature not included in Joe's timeline, is the edge beveling. After Heiser quit using the throat rivets for strength, they began using a 1/2" reinforcement stitch at the throat. At that time, it seems that they quit doing the front face edge bevel.

Moving forward, Heiser/HKL continued this tradition of serif number stamps and no front edge beveling on their west and horizontal stamped sheaths.

Johnson,when he started, distinguished himself as a sheath maker by orienting his stamp east, used no number stamp, then used non serif number stamps, and beveled the edge as Moore did.

Why wouldn't he want to have his sheaths distinguishable? He was a leather worker. A professional.

What you and Joe are asking me to believe is that:

1) Johnson absolutely clones Heiser sheaths, right down to the the stamp orientation, serif number stamps, and no edge bevel.

2) Johnson wakes up one day after making a few hundred or thousand sheaths, decides then, and only then to turn the stamp?

Guys, that part is totally logical. What is not logical to me is that he has been using perfectly good serif number stamps, has been saving time and labor by not edging the front of the sheaths. Then he decides on a whim to spend money to change the style of the number stamp, and spend that extra manufacturing time to edge the front of the sheath????? Why, may I ask? What is the logic?

What is logical to me is that Heiser/HKL made west and horizontal sheaths in the same manufacturing tradition that they had been using for years.

Johnson, from the beginning,wanted his sheaths to be distinguished, changes the orientation to east, uses non serif number stamps as he may have had already, and bevels the edge as Moore, another Florida sheath maker had done.

I guess you and Joe would have me believe that the differences, like cowhide thickness, leather tone, mottling, thread color, stitch tightness will convince me otherwise?

I don't think so. And here is why.

Saddle makers may traditionally get their cowhide from a single source, but the suppliers get their hides from different places around the country, depending on availability.

Stitch count? We see variables with both makers.

Leather tone? Leather tone changes over the years, especially if the owner of the knife may have conditioned the leather.

Mottling? Can't speak to that yet, but I will.

Too fuzzy for me. Too many variables that can be observed with both makers.

What's not fuzzy, is the intentional way that the makers made the sheaths. The stamps, the edge beveling.

Heck, I haven't even covered the reinforcement stitch. Heiser was all over the place on that one. Both stitches inside, both stitches outside, one inside, one outside, on the Heisers. The Heiser/HKL's display that too.

The East facing Johnson sheaths, thus far seem to be all inside reinforcement stitch, making it safer to bevel the front edge. Smart I think, and logical.

I know this is pretty long winded, but I am trying to make it all as crystal clear as I have found the evidence so far.

Good luck trying to change my mind. It will take proof, not opinion.

I'm firing up a Montecristo. #@$^%&(&*^%%$#%

In the Historical King Faisal thread, Joe stated:





Respectfully, It does have to do with baby dots, just as it has to do with Heiser. Its called establishing a baseline for comparison. How else could you possibly do it Joe?

Just because Heiser changed to HKL and used another stamp on the early RMK brown buttons, they continued with the same workers. Manufacturing techniques continued.

Just as Johnson used the same manufacturing techniques when he quit using brown buttons and started using baby dots.

If prior Heiser, and later baby dots weren't part of the equation, there would be no way to distinguish, other than opinion.

Why on earth are you attempting to separate baby dots out? We know Heiser/HKL brown button manufacturing style, based on prior Heiser examples. We know Johnson brown button style based on baby dot style.
Each maker had his own style.

Really Joe?