My concern is that it has been rebladed, or is simply a fake, but Im no expert. The blades just seem too 'shiny', and the master sits a little low against the spring in the open position.
Here are some pics:


Use the "tap method" to find out. Tap the handle on the edge of your lower, front teeth. If it makes a sharp "clink" sound, it's bone. If it makes a duller "clunk" sound, it's synthetic. Compare two knives with known handle materials and you will easily see the distinctive difference.morglan wrote:The handles really do look and feel like bone to me too.
i think the pattern no. for a camillus standard barlow is #51, daddy barlow is #9.travman wrote:Morglan
looks to me like you have a mid 60s early 70s #50 Barlow with spear point blades that has seen little use![]()
The Camillus catalogs list the handles as "Phenolic"and or "Carbone"
I would think the back of the main blade should have the number 50 stamped into it
Ive got a couple barlows from same timeframe with the blades also not flush with the backspings
It is a nice loooking knife IMO
Trav
only camillus catalog i have is 1976, and they list the handles as "cabone".travman wrote:Morglan
looks to me like you have a mid 60s early 70s #50 Barlow with spear point blades that has seen little use![]()
The Camillus catalogs list the handles as "Phenolic"and or "Carbone"
I would think the back of the main blade should have the number 50 stamped into it
Ive got a couple barlows from same timeframe with the blades also not flush with the backspings
It is a nice loooking knife IMO
Trav
These are definitely bone . Click on pic for a really good examination . (1948 catalog page 5)travman wrote:The 1965 camillus catalog list a # 50 as having the spear point blade and a #51 having a clip blade
They list the # 50 untill the 1973 catalog, i dont have a 1974 or 1975 catalog
but in 1976 there is only the listing for the # 50 with the clip blade they may have stopped making the spear point version
The 1946 catalog list the barlows as #10 spear point and # 11 clip blade but they had TIP TOP on the bolsters and bone handles
The 1948 catalog list them as # 10 spear and # 11 clip blades with Camillus on the bolsters, I dont recall seeing a barlow with Camillus on the bolsters ,maybe they changed it to Barlow after the catalog came out .
If someone has a Camillus Barlow with the Camillus on the bolsters instead of Barlow please show a picture of it
Trav
morglan wrote:Orvet--
That's good to know, but it still confuses me. Do you have any pics of a cabone handle from that period? Did it look like my pics above? I really don't think the handles on mine are synthetic--there's too much depth to them.
You can read the thread at this link:knifeaholic wrote:The Camillus knife in that auction has jigged black compostion handles. I do not think they were delrin since the use of that material by Camillus (I believe) predates the invention of delrin.
Camillus used the term "Cabone" in their catalogs to denote imitation jigged bone (compostion) handles. Just as KABAR used the term "KASTAG" to denoteds their imitation bone handles, and Case used the term "Delstag".
From what I have seen of older Camillus knives and catalogs, they used that jigged black compostion material as well as genuine jigged broen bone on the "three-line" stamped knives starting after WWII and continuing into the 1950's.
Then at some point they swithced to a compostion that was similar in appearance (jiggin wise) but had a deep maroon color.
Then later by the 1970's they had switched to the more familiar delrin imitation bone handles that had a combination of brown and tan colors.
I think that the progression from black to maroon to the delrin with more color represented advances in the plastics industry in terms of both the materials used and the coloring processes.
But the catalogs at least in the 1970's called the material "Cabone". I always assumed that the "Ca" was from the name Camillus.
I was curious as to when Camillus did stop putting the Camillus name on the bolsters of the Barlow, so I did some checking in the catalogs I have.travman wrote:Thanks robinetn![]()
for showing those two examples
Two knives same time era with different tang stamps![]()
It goes to prove you can not use the tang stamp on Camillus knives as the only way to age a knife
I think it shows that they didnt throw anything away and would use it when needed to fill in an order ?
Now all we need is to find a Camillus catalog from the 50s to help fill in some more of the blanks
Like what year did they stop with Camillus on the Barlows ?
Thanks Trav