Case xx C61050

[espn77]

I put a knife up on eBay to sell. I was told before I listed it that it had been rehandled. I listed it explaining that the handles might not be right. Then I was informed that the stamps were probably wrong. I directed all my bidders here. I don't know how to put an eBay link up. So if someone could help I'd appreciate it. Thanks Keith.

[gsmith7158]

Here ya go Keith:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Case-XX-C61050- ... Swax5YqioS

[espn77]

Thanks Greg

[gsmith7158]

Keith , here are some comparison's but we need a real expert to check in.

[Jdub]

Tang stamp looks right to me. Bone however does not.

[1967redrider]

In my opinion that jigging looks too rounded. It looks to be newer bone as well, just going from the one picture.

[gsmith7158]

The font on the first stamp is different, also the nail nick appears to be misplaced.

[espn77]

I think there is 100% certainty that the handles aren't original. The blade is what I'm curious of now. Thanks everyone for weighing in.

[knifeaholic]

Tang stamp looks right to me. Bone however does not.

I agree...I'll take a closer look but I think the frame and blade are correct. I have had has this pattern with the more elongated CASE XX stamp (often seen on the XX 5172 as well). The bone is home made, home jigged to look like old worm groove bone.

[btrwtr]

Just looks like cobbled handles to me. I don't see anything about the blade and frame that concern me. My 2 cents.

[RalphAlsip]

Keith, thank you for making the effort and taking the time to get opinions on your knife. I agree with the consensus opinion that the handles are not original. I am going to pass along some of my observations.

Please excuse the hasty and sloppy photoshopping results from extracting the knife images from their respective backgrounds.

Frame. I have a mild suspicion that the frame may be a Tested or earlier frame based on the thinness of the neck of the handle between the shield and the bolster where the blade is pinned. If you look at the Tested example and the XX example that I attached you might be able to see what I am talking about. FYI, I'm not 100% the Tested XX knife I'm showing isn't rehandled.

Blade and nail nick. The size, shape, and position of the nail nick don't match to my norm for these knives. Please be aware that my norm could be what is lacking, not the knife.

Pattern number stamp. Steve knifeaholic has already commented on the elongated stamping with an ok so the only reason I am showing the comparison is just to show that Case used multiple stamps on these knives (in the event a future researcher comes across this thread).

My opinion is that as long as you are transparent in you description of the knife and would let any potential buyer return it upon inspection then the buyers are making their purchase decision on accurate information and it's their choice.

[cbfd]

I`m not an expert,but I`ve seen blades like this on some wood handled Case XX c61050 knives.The knife possibly had wood handles originally.

[espn77]

I want to thank all that commented. I am left with the conclusion that the blade and frame are correct. But the handles aren't original. I'm going to go ahead and sell it. Thanks again Keith

[btrwtr]

My opinion is that as long as you are transparent in you description of the knife and would let any potential buyer return it upon inspection then the buyers are making their purchase decision on accurate information and it's their choice.

Ditto!

[btrwtr]

I`m not an expert,but I`ve seen blades like this on some wood handled Case XX c61050 knives.The knife possibly had wood handles originally.

That is a very logical conclusion.

[RalphAlsip]

Bill cbfd, I believe you nailed it. You're too modest, I believe you are an expert. I found a Case XX pakkawood picture and the blade matches and the frame matches to Keith's knife.

Keith, I think your case is closed (pun). Your knife is a rehandled Case XX Pakkawood C61050.

[espn77]

Thanks guys. I really appreciate it. Keith