All About Pocket Knives

Edit: Corrected pattern number from 620 237 to 622 037.

With thanks to Charlie RobesonsRme and Roger peanut740, my "cigar box" now contains this magnificent pre-1940 beast which is a Robeson 622 037 large Cigar pattern. It is 4 1/4" closed and snaps strongly at all three blade stops (closed, half open, full open).

Charlie has posted pictures before, so these pictures are somewhat redundant. You will note that the pattern number on the knife is "62237". Technically when this appears on an old Robeson there is an implied zero "0" after "622". Charlie, please clarify or correct my statement about the pattern number as needed.

RalphAlsip wrote:With thanks to Charlie RobesonsRme and Roger peanut740, my "cigar box" now contains this magnificent pre-1940 beast which is a Robeson 620 237 large Cigar pattern. It is 4 1/4" closed and snaps strongly at all three blade stops (closed, half open, full open).

Charlie has posted pictures before, so these pictures are somewhat redundant. You will note that the pattern number on the knife is "62237". Technically when this appears on an old Robeson there is an implied zero "0" after "62". Charlie, please clarify or correct my statement about the pattern number as needed.

Ralph that thing is mint. You used the right word when you said magnificent. Wow. Redundant, not.

Nice looking jack knife Ralph. I actually believe the pattern is 622 037

6 for the jigged bone
2 for the number of blades
2 signifying brass liners and nickel silver bolsters

037 is the pattern number

If there is a 5 digit pattern number they added a 0 between the 3rd & 4th digit so 62237 becomes 622037

This is from Price & Zalesky's guide.

rexstubbins wrote:Nice looking jack knife Ralph. I actually believe the pattern is 622 037

6 for the jigged bone
2 for the number of blades
2 signifying brass liners and nickel silver bolsters

037 is the pattern number

If there is a 5 digit pattern number they added a 0 between the 3rd & 4th digit so 62237 becomes 622037

This is from Price & Zalesky's guide.

Doug, thank you for the clarification!

Jerry, Nice old Cigar.

Harold

A Real Beauty Jerry.. Clean And Crisp !

You've certainly got some beautiful knives....

Nice addition Jerry.

Nice addition Jerry.

Very nice Jerry. Same size as the 94 it appears. I love that bone. Spectacular!

Beautious!!!

Jerry, I'm sure you will be pleased with that one. Roger talked me out of it at the Dalton show in March.

It's a great knife that I owned for many years.

Robeson used a six digit pattern number. The first three digits had to do with construction details. The last three were the shape number of the frame or pattern.

The numbers started at 001 and went up to whatever. As far as I know they never reached 1000.

On knives whose shape number was between 001 and 099, they often dropped the first position zero. Whether that was dictated by lack of space on the tang, which would not have been a problem on the OP 037 jack, or simply because the guy that made the pattern number dies found it easier to fabricate five digits instead of six, I don't know. I do know that you will see knives of the same pattern and some will have six digits and some five.

I, myself, when I see a five digit number, just automatically read it as six, putting the missing zero in its proper place.

A lot of people, knowledgeable knife people, do not understand any of that and think the last three digits in a five digit number are the shape number. That error caused Bruce Voyles to put a lot of Robeson knives in the wrong sequence in his books.

I know it's confusing and I've discussed it many, many times on both AAPK and BF. It seems to never take root in most other's minds. Maybe I've just never explained it well enough.

Charlie Noyes

Thank you one and all for the gracious comments.

gsmith7158 wrote:Same size as the 94 it appears.

Greg, thank you for the excuse to make a comparison photo Here is the Robeson 622 037 compared to a Case Tested XX 6294. The Robeson is a beefier example with a larger frame, larger bolsters and a larger thicker spear blade. Note that Robeson put the pen secondary blade in front of the spear main blade and both nail nicks on the Robeson face the same way. Case put the spear main blade in front and the pen secondary in the back.

To my eye, this makes the Case more aesthetically pleasing to look at, but the Robeson is probably more functional because you can open either blade without reversing the knife.

Jerry I love your comparisons! Count on me for an opening anytime!

Jerry,it is a dandy!I thought you would be pleased.

Great comparison photo. I think the Robeson looks a lot better.

edge213 wrote:Great comparison photo. I think the Robeson looks a lot better.

I agree. I never see nice Robesons in shops etc. That one is just gorgeous. Congratulations.

Fantastic! Somehow I missed (or don't remember ) when Charlie posted pictures of it. So no need to apologize for redundancy. Robeson made some of the finest cutlery ever produced, and that is a sterling example of it. The bone is as nice as I've seen on any Case, Remington or any others.

Ken