The Golden Age of US cutlery

[coffeecup]

We sometimes talk about the "Golden Age of British Cutlery" or the "Golden Age of Sheffield." This was a time (from roughly 1860-WWI) when makers like Thomas Turner had as many as 12,000 possible patterns, when the UK cutlery industry had access to the best of India's Sambar stag and the ivory of India and Africa, and the best tropical woods shipped from a hundred ports. Thousands of people worked in the cutlery industry, at home or in small shops or the big factories. Thousands more worked in support and supply industries, where there were specialized trades like grindstone makers and bone-cutters. British blades were recognized as the standard of quality around the world.

Over here in the US, knifemakers were slow to start and faced serious competition, not only from Sheffield but from the German knifemakers. It wasn't until after protective tariffs were passed on imported goods that American knifemakers really grew, and with them the specialized support and supply companies (including, for example, companies like Winterbottom Cutlery Works, who in addition to making cutlery, supplied "Winterbottom bone" to the trade). With that in mind, I'd say the "Golden Age of US Cutlery" ran from about 1895-WWII.

Today, nostalgia is a big seller, old patterns are being brought back; for more than 40 years old company names have been revived and used here and abroad. We have companies producing knives with simulated wear ("pocket-worn" handles for example), and some folks artificially patinate their knives so they look like the knives their grandfathers carried.

But what does all this talk about "quality," "tradition," and "classic" design really mean? What should we expect when buying a knife "made like they used to?" That's the question I started with back in 2009. Since then, I've looked at things like blade hardness, grain size, spring construction and tempering, the amount of "pull" or "snap" a knife has, general fit and finish questions, and the amount of horizontal/vertical play in both Golden Age knives (in new and in well-worn condition) and some modern knives. At times, we'll get into some information about how knives were carried and used, and the effects that may have had on selection and on useful life of a knife.

I'm starting this thread to share some of the stuff learned. I'll try to answer questions and get more information posted every few days to every week or so. There won't be a lot of artistic knife pics, or discussion of currently-produced knives, but I think some of the information may interest, and even surprise a few people. (I hope so--I'd hate to think I'm the only one who obsesses about things like this!)

Jim

[coffeecup]

To begin with, let's consider what a knife-buyer might have looked for a hundred years ago. Once the maker, pattern, etc was selected, how did a guy go about judging the quality of a knife?

Over the years, I've spoken with a lot of people who grew up in the first half of the 20th century about this. They tend to go along the lines of what I learned from my "grandpa" (actually, my great-uncle's father-in-law; he was born about 1884). His general procedure and advice was:

1) Hold the knife up to a light and look for gaps between the springs and the scales. If you see any, look at another knife.

2) A knife has to feel good in your hand. When the knife is open or closed, there shouldn't be any sharp corners or edges other than the cutting edge, and you shouldn't be able to feel where the covers meets the bolster. Open the blade you'll use the most and squeeze the knife really hard; the other blades shouldn't sit so high as to make your fingers hurt or go numb. If anything is loose or raised or sharp, or it doesn't feel good in your hand, put it down and don't pick it up again.

3) Blades shouldn't rub on the other blades or the liners when you open or close the knife, and should be centered when the knife is closed (note that he didn't mean perfectly centered, but rather, not touching the liners or other blades). Springs should be strong enough to hold the knife open, but not so strong that you can't open it when your hands are cold or greasy or wet. When open, the blades shouldn't move unless you are closing the knife. If it does all this, it might be worth buying.

4) You should be able to sharpen the knife fairly quickly, and the edge should last through the day. You won't know that til you buy it, and sometimes it takes a sharpening or two before you can tell, so don't waste your time buying a knife you don't like.

[jerryd6818]

I look forward to seeing what avenues this thread will explore. Thanks Jim for opening the subject.

[treefarmer]

So far so good ! I like reading this stuff and learning more about our "addiction". What facts caused you to call WWII to be the end of our "Golden Age"? Is that the beginning or end of WWII? Treefarmer

[trutemper]

Howdy Jim,

I was born back in 1951 and still remember well many of the early knives made "back in the day". I also remember the advice of the my grandfather and dad who also were hunters/outdoorsmen and knife collectors (Grandad moreso on fixed blades and Dad moreson on pocketknives). I`d say your earlier post is good advice on evaluating a good knife and do look forward to what others have to say on the topic. Thanks for starting out this discussion.

Bob

[coffeecup]

So far so good ! I like reading this stuff and learning more about our "addiction". What facts caused you to call WWII to be the end of our "Golden Age"? Is that the beginning or end of WWII? Treefarmer

Good question. I looked at manufacturing practices and product lines.

As we know, the war was essentially a "total war," meaning most or all production was channeled into military and support goods. We weren't just supplying our forces, but those of our allies. Companies shifted from civilian production to military contracts, and in the post-war era continued some manufacturing practices and "shortcuts" developed for wartime production. As a result, many pre-war products were never brought back (at least in the same form), and selection of options never quite recovered. Some companies never quite recovered.

The post-WWII era saw the decline in availability of materials for scales, coupled with increased demand for those same products. Sambar stag, ivory, and many tropical hardwoods, weren't as available as before the war, resulting in the use of what would have been "second rate" materials before the war. Pre-war, the jigged bone we are so fond of now was one of the cheaper cover materials. After the war it gradually became a "premium" item, while materials like the various "compositions" and eventually, delrin, became the standard.

I also have to wonder about the effects wartime changes had on post-war steels. Increasingly, steels were made of a higher percentage of recycled materials. I can't help but wonder if this may have played a role in some of the changes seen in the structure of steels after the war (actually, mostly into the '60s and '70s).

[philco]

I have a feeling I'm going to enjoy this thread a lot. Thanks Jim.

[coffeecup]

I hope so Phil!

This will be my first serious attempt to share research since the head injury a couple years ago--I'm relying on you guys to call me out when I'm not being clear, or need to provide more information. I tend to forget W-A-Y too much these days!

Jim

[knife7knut]

If the "Golden Age" of pocket knives ended around WWII I think we are now experiencing a rebirth of that age now.I'll explain that momentarily but now:
I believe that it probably started to really gain ground directly after WWI fo a couple of reasons.One was the fact that literally thousands of men who had previously been in the cutlery industry on both sides(German and English)were either killed or wounded in the,"Great War". This served to virtually cripple the industry in both countries.What exacerbated the problem was that the remaining cutlers were being lured to this country by the knife manufacturers here who offered wages that were way above what they were receiving in their home countries. That and the fact that a lot of arms manufacturers(Remington;Winchester,and the like)were now turning to knifemaking in lieu of dwindling arms sales. Note that most of them got out of the business just prior to WWII;they likely knew that war was coming soon.
After WWII I think the knife business faltered because most people were trying to put their lives back together again and raising a family and finding suitable housing and an automobile took precedence.This was compounded by the beginning of the,"Japanese Invasion" in the knife industry.Many people were content to settle for a knife that was cheaper to buy and replace.The cheaper American made knives could not compete with the imports even though many were superior.This was when a lot of companies started to merge to stay afloat. It was a stopgap that sometimes worked but more often than not didn't.
The 70's saw the rise in quality of the Japanes knife and the beginning of imports from other countries such as India and Pakistan.Most were pretty much useless but there were a couple of Pakistani knives that weren't all that bad in quality(Bullet knives for one).Although they are still prolific their quality leaves much to be desired.
The 70's also saw the rise of the purely custom knife and knifemakers.Again there were some that fell by the wayside but most seemed to really put out a great product for a reasonable amount of money.This is where I believe the second incarnation of the Golden Age began.With the advent of the proliferation of knifemakers came a proliferation of knife collectors.The remaining knife companies took note of this and a serious look at what they were producing and why it wasn't selling.Putting the quality back into the knives and trying to keep the costs down to a reasonable level resulted in a surge in business.
What also began was a series of smaller companies who started producing knives that would sell for reasonable priices and be of good quality.This was spurred on even more by the gradual incursion of knives made in China.The Chinese however learned early on that junk knives do not sell well and have made serious upgrades to the knives they produce now.
So now we have a huge market where one can spend as little or as much as they want and get a knife that is of great quality for a reasonable price. A lot of people bemoan the fact that the Chinese are dominating the market now by flooding it with cheap knives. I think what is really happening is that the market is taking care of itself.The smaller American companies seem to be doing a capacity business and that cannot be bad.Sadly not all companies will survive but that has been an American busness model for a lot longer than the Golden Age has been around.

Just my take folks;for what it is worth.Salt optional.

[coffeecup]

I got a couple of emails asking about research approaches, funding, and institutional support. Iguess that goes to show that some folks here have really warped senses of humor, or know me too well (or perhaps, that there is significant overlap between the two categories!). For the record, I am a salaried employee of the Ireallywannaknow Thinktank, funding was obtained from the Wallet Group, and institutional support and guidance was provided by Z. S. Macdogal.

In other words, I wanted to know something, paid for it myself, and discussed any problems with my German Shepherd. Seriously. That is why some of my questions might have been framed differently, or the research conducted differently, by someone else--I was mostly seeking answers for myself, to questions that developed in a rather serendipitous manner.

Take the question of whether old steels were better in some way, or if they were even different. Before we can really look at that, we have to figure out what we know about the steels in old knives. So I accumulated a bunch of beaters/parts knives from a variety of pre-WWII makers, knocked them apart, and did some tests. That gave me some idea of past heat-treating tolerances, as well as indications of the desired hardness on blades. There were some indications of what we might be talking about when we discuss subjective differences in knife sharpening or in edge-holding ability. While doing that, a number of fixed-blade knives (sporting knives, kitchen/butcher knives, and WWI/WWII military knives and bayonets) were also tested.

Questions of "spring fatigue" or "relaxing" were looked at briefly (mostly using new modern knives because so few mint pre-WWII knives were affordably available). The springs from the knives that were disassembled were also examined for hints as to intended design and hardness, and for weak points where there were multiple examples of breaks. Then there were some questions about the often-discussed question of knife "pull" and the (extremely subjective) 1-10 scale. So I devised a jig to hold the knife stationary, and apply weight attached to the nail nick, in order to see how much force was actually required to open a knife.

Questions of fit and finish were harder to answer, in large part because of the limited number of pre-WWII knives I was able to examine. I was able to dip into my collection and that of my brother, as well as a couple of friends, for study pieces. (For some reason they were concerned that the knives would be returned intact. . . . ) That is still a limited number though, and that has to be kept in mind when considering my conclusions.

Most recently, I've looked at the question of tolerances in the difference in thickness of the spring and blade. I'll start discussing results there, in the next post.

[coffeecup]

Last year, I purchased a modern knife of one of my favorite patterns. The example was from the maker's premium line, and I expected a knife I could use as an exemplar of the pattern, to which I could compare other examples of the same pattern from different makers. (The fact that it had the nicest stag I've ever seen on an American-made knife may have also played a role in my purchase, but that wasn't the primary reason for the buy.)

As received, the knife had so much play it rattled when open, so off it went back to the factory. After a few months, it was returned. As far as I could tell, the folks at the factory never even unwrapped the knife . . . after a little while, I told myself that since I'd purchased it as a study piece, I may as well study it. So we (me, the dogs, and the knife) went out to the shop and the study commenced.

I carefully--so as not to injure the stag!--cut the knife apart. Some quick measurements with a micrometer revealed part of the problem: the tang of the blade was .010" thinner than the spring. That seemed a bit excessive to me, so I posted here asking what the tolerances should be.

Iron Hoarder suggested .002", EA42 suggested no more than .005", and Elvis said that he goes for a tang thickness that is .001" thinner than the spring. When three guys whose knowledge I trust come up with similar answers, I'm inclined to think they are onto something, so I figured the difference I saw was a flaw rather than a design feature. Then I got to wondering, and spent much of February in search of answers.

With a little luck, I was able to source 31 pre-WWII knives via ebay. I took them apart and carefully marked each one so I could identify springs and matching blades. After cleaning (Kroil and a stainless steel wire brush), I rejected those pairs with blade tangs that showed signs of obvious wear on the sides of the tangs, or peening of the springs from abuse. This left me with 37 spring/tang pairs to measure (on a project like this, you buy as many multiple-blade knives as you can).

In no case was the tang thickness greater than the spring thickness; the closest was about half-a-thou (.0005"). The greatest difference I found was about .004"; the average was .0029". Given the nature and small size of the sample, I didn't look beyond the average.

For now, I'm taking this as an indication that the desired difference between spring thickness and tang thickness was in the .002"-.003" range. Given the small sample size, I think this is just an indication. To get a better idea, I'd want to look at a minimum of maybe 5-10 knives from 10 or so makers of the era.

To do it well--to really get an idea of what the desired differences and tolerances were, and what the effect of those measurements were, I'd want to do some actual experimentation. I'm thinking that after cleaning all of the sample knives, I'd want to tighten the joints using the same slackener, then measure the resulting amount of play. After that, knock the knives apart and measure the differences in thickness. I think there would be a trend, where the greater the difference in thickness, the greater the amount of play. I may work on this one some more at some point.

Iron Hoarder and EA42 also discussed the effect of the pivot pin diameter/hole diameter, but I didn't look at this. Most of the knives I've dis-assembled have had significant wear or abuse on the pins, and I'm just not sure I could find enough that were as-made to indicate much, let alone reach any conclusions.

[thawk]

Jim: Thanks for taking the time to contribute your information. I appreciate the effort, and look forward to seeing more.

[Knife Nut]

Wow Jim, you have me hooked.....keep the info coming.

Paul

[knife7knut]

This is merely a suggestion but could you check the knives using a non-destructive method of testing? I was think of possibly measuring side play by the use of feeler gauges.I have a set sitting here on my desk that has as the smallest one .0015". This would serve a double duty in that it would allow measurement all the way through the opening and closing to verify that it wasn't becoming tighter or looser.
Are you checking relative hardness of the springs and tangs?If so are you using a Rockwell hardness tester? It has been my experience that most earlier knives that suffer metal hardness incompatibility that the spring is usually the culprit which accounts for the tang wearing and causing the blade to sit proud.Of course if you are checking them without any thought to re-assembly you could do multiple hardness tests along the length of the blades and springs to check for differential hardening.
I am really enjoying this thread so please keep up the great work!

[Mr Rick]

Great thread. I'm new, but I can see I'm going to learn a lot.

[coffeecup]

Knife7knut asked some good questions, particularly about non-destructive testing. Needing to take the knife apart (in order to do some measurements, test hardness, or examine finishes) really limits the available pool of samples. Most of the older knives I've sacrificed were damaged or worn to the point that no one else wanted them.

When looking at old knives like this, non-destructive testing just doesn't work out. Measuring the gap with feeler gauges tells us what the gap is, but due to the effects of use and wear over the years since it was made, it doesn't give any idea of what the makers intended. On a truly new, never used, knife, it might be a good way to monitor wear and establish a relationship between gap and play. You could measure the gap and amount of play when new, then measure it again over time. As (if) the gap increased, play will also increase.

As a user, I really don't care what the spring or tang actually measure, I'm interested in how little play the blade has, and how much or little will develop over time. Measuring the difference is just a way of looking at factors that seem to influence this.

I wish there were another way: I always feel guilty when I take an old knife apart with no intent of ever putting it back together.

[IMBand]

AWESOME thread Jim.....Thank You so much for taking the time to post this for all.......you are appreciated.

IM

[upnorth]

Very interesting study indeed, Jim! How can I help??
I tossed a brand new knife (American Made) in my pocket at the beginning of December, and it has performed flawlessly. It sharpens easily (1095), has zero play anywhere, and keeps its edge through a lot of cutting! The antithesis of your experience, I am sorry to say!
To my experience we are at least partially, in a new golden age!
Charlie

[coffeecup]

I can't agree that we are seeing a revival or renewal of a Golden Age of US cutlery today, for a few reasons.

First off, we simply don't have the volume or range of production (which is only to be expected, as we don't have the same level of demand today). At one point in the '30s, Remington was making more than 10,000 pocket knives a day. They had around 900 patterns in production, as in, "place your order and we will pull it from stock," not "maybe we'll make some someday" or "we made a few once and maybe someday we'll make some more." Even many of the smaller cutleries had more patterns than almost any US maker today.

Remington used about a dozen different materials for scales. That is "different materials" not "dozens of colors or patterns of the same material." And for the most part, these were stock items, not limited-production.

There was actual choice between makers. If you wanted a particular pattern, you could choose from the products of different makers. This happened on all economic levels. Knifemakers actually competed for business, and introduced models for different trades and purposes (one of my favorites is the Western States "Dynamite knife": a congress-pattern with 4 sheepsfoot blades).

And knives arrived sharp and ready to actually use . . . . Knives with problems were seldom seen by the customers, because few of them left the factory, and then there were additional layers of inspection by some wholesalers and all retailers, because selling a bad knife could cost you business now and in the future.

The cutlers of the Golden Age were (please pardon the expression) "on the cutting edge" of knifemaking. Many of the companies of today are nothing more than producers of products that pay homage to knives produced during the Golden Age. There is nothing wrong with making knives of older patterns--tradition has always played a strong role in cutlery. Patterns evolved because they worked. But devoting a company solely to making knives of older/traditional patterns as collectibles is something new.

Today, cutlers continuing the old traditions of satisfying customers while enticing them with new designs that build on the past--companies like Spyderco and Kershaw, or A. G. Russell, for example--are for the most part designing in the US and contracting some or all of their production overseas. They are great companies, and make a great product, but I'm not sure we should consider them "US" makers.

That brings up another point: given the globalization of production, I'm not sure we will ever again see a single nation rise to prominence in the cutlery world. It looks like the future of knife manufacture is going to be multi-national. It always has been, to some extent, but in the past it was raw or finished materials that were imported.

There have always been custom cutlers; evaluating their work on any level beyond utility gets into questions of art, which should be considered in the context of the time and place in which the art was produced. When considering the custom knifemakers today, we need to keep in mind that we are an incredibly rich society, relative both to the rest of the world and to our own society in the past. (To understand what I mean by that, just consider the salary and bonuses of a Walmart manager, and compare it to that of any manager of a large store 100 years ago.) More people today can afford the custom work, some of which is truly incredible, but given the context of the times, equally fine work was done in the past. The biggest difference is the size of the pool of potential buyers.

[whitebuffalo58]

What about the aspect of regional availability? I know for a fact, that prior to WWII, my grandpa would have never seen a Wostenholm IXL or even a knife made by Queen. It was a small farm/ranch community and the knives they had to choose from were, Schrade Walden, Camillus and Imperial. They may have seen a few Utica's or Ulster's, but all would have been bought and sold as working man tools. Before he died, I asked my grandpa about how he went about choosing a knife. He just shrugged and said, "that's what was on the counter at the hardware store".
Not really trying to make a point, but I do wonder how many people during the golden age of cutlery, would have even considered one brand over another. I kinda think that most people would have bought what was available and assumed it was going to be a good product.

WB

[Miller Bro's]

Over here in the US, knifemakers were slow to start and faced serious competition, not only from Sheffield but from the German knifemakers. It wasn't until after protective tariffs were passed on imported goods that American knifemakers really grew, and with them the specialized support and supply companies (including, for example, companies like Winterbottom Cutlery Works, who in addition to making cutlery, supplied "Winterbottom bone" to the trade). With that in mind, I'd say the "Golden Age of US Cutlery" ran from about 1895-WWII. Jim

I would say you are about 35 years late on the start date and about 15 years past on the stop.

The "golden age" of American cutlery began around the American civil war and ended during the start of the great depression.

[trutemper]

Yup, Dimitri, from what I`ve seen with respect to my estimation of overall value,quality, amount of world wide production and historical significance, I think the years that you just mentioned are pretty much right on.

Bob

[coffeecup]

I think Miller Bro's may be on to something. I sort of selected those dates based on my understanding of availability: the vast majority of the old "family" knives from the 1865-1895 period that I've seen in museums or personal collections were Sheffield-made, as were probably half or more of the knives with solid provenance of having been carried during the Civil War era. The limited number of jobbers' lists and catalogs from this period that I've had access to seemed to have a far more diverse offering of Sheffield cutlery than of US-made cutlery. The end date was picked in a similar fashion, because--at least from jobbers' pricelists and catalogs--it seemed the knives continued to be available into the WWII years, even though at least in some cases, production had stopped or the companies ceased operations years earlier.

WB has a good point too: at least on a local level, what we see reflects in part past availability of knives from different makers, as well as regional and cultural preferences. I suspect the market for some patterns was strongly regional (big trappers probably weren't a hot item in NYC, and pearl-handled pen knives seem unusual in strongly rural areas).

[coffeecup]

It was nice to test hardness of fixed blades: in most cases, I didn't have to destroy them! I realize the sample sizes are small, but they are what I have to work with. I'd be very interested in views on thoughts and comments on the results, and possible interpretations, as well as any documentation on what hardness the factories were shooting for. (When considering early knives, we should probably keep in mind that other testing methods were used to judge hardness. The Rockwell test wasn't patented until 1919, or introduced into commerce until the mid-to-late 1920s.)

Generally speaking, I lumped the knives tested into three categories: "utility" (mostly butchers' knives or cooks' knives, with a couple of knives made for commercial fishermen), "sporting" (blades made for hunting and fishing), and "military" (knives produced on order, to spec). Note that I did not include secondary military knives (sporting knives purchased in quantity by the government for issue in the early years of WWII) in the "military" category.

Utility blades were fairly uniform in hardness. This shouldn't be a surprise, as they were made and sold in vast quantities. A total of 29 knives were tested: two knives from each of 9 makers, plus 11 unmarked knives (possibly originally etched). Hardness range was 52-55 HRC (Rockwell C scale). Broken down by numbers:
HRC............# of knives
52.....................2
53....................10
54....................11
55.....................6
From these numbers, I think it is fair to say that the desired hardness was probably in the 53-54 HRC range.

Sporting blades had a bit more of a spread, but most were in the 55-57 range. I tested 15 knives, consisting of 3 Marbles, 2 Case, 1 Kinfolks, 4 Westerns, 2 Remingtons, and 3 Pals. By the numbers:
HRC...........# of knives
55....................1
56....................3
57....................5
58....................5
59....................1
From these numbers I think they were probably shooting for a hardness around 57, but I'm not sure. Two of the Marbles were in the 58-59 range, the third was the sole 55 HRC--but in the same pattern and with the same marking as one of the others. I don't know if this reflects intent or a range of acceptable hardness, or something else.

Military blades were a different matter; there were two clear clusters of hardness. I tested both bayonets (WWI production) and knives (mostly WWII production). The bayonets (I tested 10, from a variety of makers) ranged 47-51 HRC. By the numbers:
WWI bayonets
HRC.............# of blades
47....................4
48....................5
51....................1
These are within the range (47 HRC-53 HRC) specified in contracts for the M5 bayonet, so I think they were probably as intended.

Knives tested (total 12) included 8 Mk2s (from Camillus, KaBar, and Robeson), two Cattaraugus Q-knives, a Case Q-knife, and a Marine Raider stilletto. The knives ranged from 54-58. By the numbers:
WWII knives
HRC...........# of knives
54....................1
55....................4
56....................3
57....................3
58....................1
I suspect the WWII knives were hardened using the same methods and with the same desired hardness as "sporting knives" from the same makers.

[knife7knut]

Interesting figures on the hardening.May I inquire as to where the tests were made? was it near the cutting edge or the spine? Was more than one test applied to each knife in different areas? I know differential hardening is used today but I'm not sure how far back it goes. It would be interesting to test the hardness in a spring and a tang;especially on a knife that shows obvious signs of wear due to improper hardening compatibility.

I can understand why the bayonets tested low on the scale:their primary use is for stabbing and edge holding would be a secondary consideration.They were also subjected to uses that would leave most knife blades broken such as digging in dirt,etc.which would likely put undue side loading on a blade.A softer blade would be less likely to snap under those conditions.

Having worked in a machine shop during school I would watch the instructor demonstrating how to harden steel by looking at the color as it cooled and quenching it when he saw the proper shade.He rarely messed anything up. He would also use a,"spark test"(running a test piece against a grinding wheel and noting the color and size of the sparks)to determine relative hardness.Maybe not as accurate as modern day techniques but quite sufficient for most uses.

Anyway thanks again for this most fascinating study;I look forward to more.