Case/Kutmaster Parts Knife

[Robo]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/153516576998

This parts knife is comprised of a long clip blade from a Case Tested XX era -2095 or -1095* knife re-housed in a Kutmaster tickler frame. How do we know this? The handle is the giveaway. both the one and two blade 095 pattern knives from the Tested XX era were housed in 4 7/8" frames made of a slightly lighter gauge material then what we have come to refer to** as the --1093 tickler. The Kutmaster tickler was also made of a light gauge material but was just a hair stockier (2.2 oz vs. 1.9 oz) and measures out to 5" in length. As you can see in the photos below, the bolster on the Kutmaster Tickler to the left is slightly longer than the Tested Tickler on the right. In the next photo you'll see that the end cap on the Kutmaster (left) is also longer than the Case. Case only sold one tickler with grooved bolster and cap but this knife was a Utica tickler with a long muskrat type blade Case contracted durring the W.R. Case & Sons era. So the grooved bolster and cap on the knife in question is another red flag***.

Handle material: I've seen a number of 1095 pattern knives from this era with a number of different handle materials. Kutmaster definitely used this particular type of striped material. I'm not sure if Case did so I'll leave this up to Steve or others who know for sure.

An exposed pivot pin is often cited as an indication of a swapped out blade. unless this swapping has been done sloppily or with the wrong pin material I don't believe this should be considered a red flag--but definately a yellow. I have plenty of older knives with the pivot pin exposed that haven't had the blades swapped out.

* If you don't collect Case knives these pattern designations--especially on the Tickler pattern knife--can be confusing. If I have left out the first digit in the pattern number it is because that is the handle material digit and they often vary. To complicate things, very few Case pocket knives from the Tested Era had pattern numbers stamped into the back of the main blade. This is especially frustrating when it comes to their Tickler pattern folders because Case tended to swap the 093 and 095 pattern number around for one reason or another and they didn't always stick to the general rule of thumb that the change in pattern number indicated a design change.

** I just purchased a 31093 tickler with a &Sons/Bradford era blade and supper slender frame. I can't explain the existance of this knife other than it is legit. But I would call it an exception looks-wise to the Tested --1093 which is a lot stockier.

***Kutmaster made their ticklers with and without the notched bolster and cap.

[KleenCut61]

You Sure can Root -em Out Robo

[herbva]

This seller also has a pretty 6294 up for sale that looks suspicious to me. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Case-XX-Red-Ji ... %7Ciid%3A1

Perhaps I am being overly dubious regarding this knife due to the above post on the "case/cutmaster parts knife", but the "CASE" tang stamp looks a bit wonky to me. I've looked at all of my Case XX knives and the letter spacing looks much more even and none of them have the "A" and the "S" actually touching. Also doesn't it look like the shield doesn't fill up the inlay (cutout area)?

I have always wanted to add a 6294 to my collection, but won't go near this one unless I hear otherwise from the experts!

[zp4ja]

This seller also has a pretty 6294 up for sale that looks suspicious to me. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Case-XX-Red-Ji ... %7Ciid%3A1

Perhaps I am being overly dubious regarding this knife due to the above post on the "case/cutmaster parts knife", but the "CASE" tang stamp looks a bit wonky to me. I've looked at all of my Case XX knives and the letter spacing looks much more even and none of them have the "A" and the "S" actually touching. Also doesn't it look like the shield doesn't fill up the inlay (cutout area)?

I have always wanted to add a 6294 to my collection, but won't go near this one unless I hear otherwise from the experts!

Personally think you may be over looking the overall knife read first, read the stamp last. That knife is 100% authentic in my opinion. Stamp dies were not always perfect on CASE knives. They were very used even if damaged or less then perfect.
Always read the knife first, stamp last. First thing I look at to determine age is the nail nick assuming it is not a long pull. Those get a different read first and still stamp read last.

Could be wrong on my read but don't think so.

Jerry

[peanut740]

This seller also has a pretty 6294 up for sale that looks suspicious to me. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Case-XX-Red-Ji ... %7Ciid%3A1

Perhaps I am being overly dubious regarding this knife due to the above post on the "case/cutmaster parts knife", but the "CASE" tang stamp looks a bit wonky to me. I've looked at all of my Case XX knives and the letter spacing looks much more even and none of them have the "A" and the "S" actually touching. Also doesn't it look like the shield doesn't fill up the inlay (cutout area)?

I have always wanted to add a 6294 to my collection, but won't go near this one unless I hear otherwise from the experts!

Personally think you may be over looking the overall knife read first, read the stamp last. That knife is 100% authentic in my opinion. Stamp dies were not always perfect on CASE knives. They were very used even if damaged or less then perfect.
Always read the knife first, stamp last. First thing I look at to determine age is the nail nick assuming it is not a long pull. Those get a different read first and still stamp read last.

Could be wrong on my read but don't think so.

Jerry

Ditto.

[Robo]

You Sure can Root -em Out Robo

Thanks, Brother!

[herbva]

Thanks, good to know. What about the shield inlay being too big for the shield. Replacement shield?

[1967redrider]

Thanks, good to know. What about the shield inlay being too big for the shield. Replacement shield?

Could that be leftover polish that dried giving the illusion that the shield is too small for the inlay?

[knifeaholic]

Thanks, good to know. What about the shield inlay being too big for the shield. Replacement shield?

Could that be leftover polish that dried giving the illusion that the shield is too small for the inlay?

I won the auction for the 6294.

Yes the inlay is a bit too big for the shield. You will see that on some older Case pocket knives, it came from the factory that way. Not terribly common but it did happen.

[1967redrider]

Thanks, Steve.