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 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.
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.
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.
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...
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.........
Previous Topic
Index
