Not trying to take the thread off track, but this statement came at a most appropriate time. I knew that Tunefink wrapped his stones in saran wrap, and I was getting ready to do the same with mine. Are you saying Joe, the newer stones don't develop the verdigris as bad as the older stones?

I'd like to see this thread continue. There was so much good information brought forth by all parties in the original thread. It has made me look at the way I see these knives much more carefully.

Chief made a comment on the original thread that he didn't look at the knives he was interested in the way some of you do. (Or, something to that effect). Well, I could relate to what he said very easily, because that was me too.

Threads such as these will help those of us interested in learning more about what we love. I'm thanking everybody here that has taken their time and energy to post the information they felt was relevant to the subject. Disagreements are bound to come forth, it's only human nature.

Mike,
Orange stones "gather" verdigris as well. I think Joe meant that he uses orange (or salmon, if you will) to maintain the hone pockets original shape and integrity while, at the same time keeping the "nasties" off of the original (much more scarce and valuable) stones.
Best, Capt. Chris

This will be my only post here unless something dramatic pops up.

Chris, you say "there are two "camps" ... and then mildly disparage and misrepresent our case, and generally act like the two "camps" are in some way equal and it is a toss up to decided which is correct. I don't mind the mild commentary. But... sorry, the two "camps" are not equal.

Let's be honest. One "camp" is me, Ron, and many others who have proposed and documented a thesis that there is an easily identifiable difference between HKL and Johnson brown button sheaths. The other "camp" is mostly one active person (perhaps there are others who have not joined the discussion), Joe, who first opposed the thesis in its entirety, but now proposes exceptions that will basically negate the new "rule." That is ok if the research is done and made public.

The case for a visual and construction difference between Heiser, aka HKL, and Johnson was developed systematically, with many examples uniting each of the two groups together and putting them into context with each other. History and provenance and documented knives were used, the community participated with examples.

In developing the case, we posted all the knives that could be found that had anomolies. We solicited the collector community to provide examples pro and con. We discussed all the sheaths that did not fit the pattern and did not seek to hide any such sheaths. In the end, the overwhelming evidence led to the conclusion. The case did not start with a proposed conclusion and then seek to prove it.

Now what do we have in this case. We have one knife that to all the world looks like (to me and others) it fits like a glove in the HKL catagory. But what has been posted about it is conjecture, and that one sheath has suddenly morphed. It became a full-fledged out-of-the-blue hypothesis that some sheaths were made by Johnson that were exact replicas of HKL. The proof? None has been offered, only opinions. No other examples, nothing to tie whatever feature of that sheath is the flavor of the day to one group and exclude it from the other.

Now we have another knife with metal snaps that is being used as bait. Well, If someone want to post such a sheath, post a complete set of pictures, and propose your opinion and how it fits. I'll be happy to consider it, discuss the ideas. However, showing tiny bits of a sheath and withholding key elements is not discussion ... it is "gotcha." I don't think I will play that game anymore. Please note neither Ron or I have ever played that gambit.

I am gratified that the basic thesis seems to be accepted now. It already has been by most vintage collectors. Honestly, I look forward to some documentation, an intellectual case complete with pictures, commentary, history, that tightly identifies these "new" components and shows how they apply over a large class of sheaths. But I doubt it is going to happen.

Regards, Jack

PS: The argument is about sheaths, not someone's character or personal worth. There is only one infallible entity and I'm not it, Ron isn't, Joe isn't etc. It is not a stain on anyone's expertise if another's thesis is proved correct... nope ... we all gain as collectors.

I've been warned again about wearing out my welcome. Fine, not sure what is objectionable, the content, how it is delivered or my references to other theses. I will try to avoid denigrating other persons. But it I get tossed, well... I'll still do research... just can't help it. Regards to all.

No reason for you to get tossed Jack. Your work here has been exemplary and interesting and helpful to say the least. I think we all appreciate what you have done. I know I have and I believe Joe has said that as well. I personally don't want to see you go anywhere. You and Ron offer so much to the discussion of Randall Knives. Just keep the knowledge coming. Like a fellow once said.....knowledge be good.

Jack -

I am glad you're back, I really am. I don't know who your "others" are but you should include them. So far, it is only you and Ron. I don't need anyone to back me up in a debate, so we may have to go it alone, mano a mano, unless the "others" are as certain as you are and will chime in.

I have more photos to post but just haven't had the time to get it together, but I will get it done soon.

Unfortunately Jack, there are two camps in this debate. If you read my post above, you will see I have outlined what I think to be the situation. Everyone is free to have opinions, but to catagorically put an absolute (hence my line in the sand analogy) on this transition period from HKL to Johnson, which I think you guys are doing, is misguided in my opinion. Thats all.

Now for some clarification. I am not 100% sure about what the thesis that I opposed in its entirety is. If I am understanding what you say above, it is that "there is an easily identifiable difference between HKL and Johnson brown button sheaths".Is that correct?

I think it would be prudent on your part to list those differences so it is clear to the readers here and everyone understands exactly where you stand.




I also need to be brought up to speed on this. Who is "we" referenced above, and what were the "anomolies" encountered and what made them anomolies? I presume compared to what is considered a standard? Who established the standard? Who are members of the "community?" I believe we need to know what the "pro" samples are, but also what constitutes a "con" sample?



As stated, photos to come, and to correct the record, and I am repeating myself here, but I have been writing about this Jack for 12 years now. You can see a quote from a published article from 2003 above. Talking about it longer than that. So it is not a "full-fledged out-of-the-blue hypothesis" as you put it. In fact it is not a hypothesis at all, but an observation.

Also for the record, I again don't know who "others" are, but not "the whole world thinks it fits like a glove in the HKL category."



No bait Jack. No trickery. I am just waiting to get an opinion from you, Ron, others, on the #3 sheath. Forget the back for a minute and focus on the front, and explain the baby dot snap at the center location. This is a characteristic that has been promoted as solely Heiser owned by you. This is not meant to be argumentative, it is a process. If you are so certain about your point a view, an evaluation shouldn't be too difficult. There is no 'gotcha' involved.

Also, this is directed to Ron, but you are welcome to chime in. There was no commentary on the mottling of Johnson leather as described and pictured above.

[

Who are 'Most vintage collectors that have or are considering accepting your thesis? "

As for the "new components" applying over a "large class of sheaths". First and foremost and going back 12 years in print, there will not be a "large" class Jack, assuming you are speaking of quantity. MJ did not make BB sheaths for probably not more than 6 months from what I can determine. Gary Randall found him in the Spring/Summer of 1962, and he was up to full production in 6-7 months. The BD snaps were being used late 62 to early 63 so that window of time for Johnson BB's is short.

[

Here is a photo from Pete Hamilton's book that he and Tom Clinton worked on. I don't recall exactly when it was released, but I know it was delayed for some time. My best guess is 10-12 years ago. Note the text.

To clarify the principle of Occam's Razor.

The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is
"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."



For our purposes " competing theories" are obvious, "same predictions" being BB (or otherwise) center-snapped /west facing stamp.

Too much has been lost to the ditritus of time and the unpredictability of hand made products. It is simpler to say (and wholly accepted by the collecting community) Heiser is Heiser -Randall Made is MJ.
Worth noting, of course, the adamant statements from the maker themselves lending credence to the latter.

Of course, the location of purchase orders to the stamp maker, shipping records, correspondence between Bo and Heiser, etc., would force a change in current thought.

Thank-you...

Man, am I learning a lot of stuff!

Tom V.

Posts from 3/30/13




From the same day:






So it seems Ron was in agreement in the difference in appearance of at least the one sheath (#5) that is like the original 1-8 sheath that started this discussion. Not sure why when I posted that sheath his opinion had changed from when Gary Clinton posted these.

Mitchell was right on, at least with sheath #5. Different die cut. Look at the toe of the sheath compared to the others. Stitching looks different.