Robeson Barlow

[superdavemack]

I was wondering about the added value to this possibly miss marked Barlow could it actually be worth more with the incorrect tang stamp? or is it incorrect?


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... fresh=true

[superdavemack]

as an added note this just went for $112.50 on Ebay so maybe that did add collector value being possibly miss marked?

[robinetn]

We need to hear from Charlie on this one !

Bob

[RobesonsRme.com]

There are at least two things about which the Ebay seller was incorrect in his auction description.

Firstly, we collect knives, not Government issued coins or stamps, so the presence of an "error" on a knife does not add value. At least, I don't think so.

Do you know anyone that pursues double struck tang stamps on knives as a collection subset? I didn't think so.

But, a double struck 1955 Lincoln penny is worth several hundreds of dollars.

In my opinion, the subject knife is an uncommon Robeson 224 daddy barlow.

Secondly, the number on the knife is not an error. Robeson pattern numbers were not applied one digit at a time, they were applied with a five or six digit die that someone had made to fit a certain pattern knife with certain characteristics. To think that someone would have made a die with digits that did not fit a genuine pattern and that the die would have been used, in error, to mark one or more knives is, to me, a stretch of the imagination.

Besides all that, I have seen two other Robeson knives with the digit "4" as the third digit.

That third digit denoted different combinations of bolster and liner material.

"0" was a combination handle, liners and bolsters; "1" was steel liners and bolsters; "2" was brass liners and nickel-silver bolsters; "3" was nickel-silver liners and bolsters; "4" is unknown; "5" was "Special", whatever that meant; "6" was iron liners and bolsters or iron bolsters; "8" was steel frame liners and bolsters and "9" was stainless steel liners and bolsters.

The Robeson numbering system has been described in numerous publications by different authors. Dewey and Lavona Ferguson, Bruce Voyles and Tom Kalcevic have all done so, but not one of them mentioned the digit "4" as a possible third place number.

I might not know what the "4" indicated, but I know they used it and have now seen three different pattern knives with it.

I do not recall if I included the "4" in my thread on The Robeson Cutlery Company in the Knife Lore Forum. I do have it listed on my website.

Having such a knife in hand would be interesting from a research perspective, but I'm not a metallurgist, nor do I have access to anyone that is.

I guess it will remain a mystery for now.

Charlie Noyes

[Miller Bro's]

I might not know what the "4" indicated, but I know they used it and have now seen three different pattern knives with it.

Do you remember if the bolsters were stamped or unusual like this Barlow?

"9" was stainless steel liners and bolsters.

I have a small 629818 with stainless blades and back spring.

The liners are coined brass and the bolsters are nickle silver

[RobesonsRme.com]

MB, neither of the other two knives had stamped bolsters. One was a 4 1/2" cocobola handled slot knife. Its nummber, I believe, was 134322. I really do not recall the pattern of the other, but it wasn't a Barlow.

Most of the info I wrote in my previous post concerning liner/bolster materials came straight from Kalcevic's book. He did not mention the "4".

I suspect their is an exception to just about everyone of those designators. For instance, I've seen plenty of Robeson knives with the "6" in the third position, but they did not have iron liners or bolsters.

Whatever Robeson's rules might have been, they were't written in stone.

We could go around in circles all night pointing out knives that don't fit the pattern number.

Charlie Noyes

[superdavemack]

great information, I liked that Barlow and wondered if it was "correct".........thanks again for the information