high $ LITTLE TOOL KNIFE

[cato]

THIS JUST FINISHED FOR JONKNIF

http://www.ebay.com/itm/231846008261?ss ... 1435.l2649

[Shearer]

I would like to know what the buyers where drinking.($464.99 )
Next time I sell something I will hand it out for free.

[knife7knut]

I think those are used for rigging dynamite.Not sure why the price went so high.

[galvanic1882]

Check page 294 of Levine's 4th and you will see the knife. It is a Dynamiter's knife and this model is a rare one. The price in the book has 225 on the top end but I guess there is much interest in them.

[RobesonsRme.com]

Levine's prices are "wholesale" and LG-IV is quite a few years old.

Charlie Noyes

[kootenay joe]

There were 4 bidders over $400. To me this shows that selling price is market value rather than a one off.
I have not seen one of these before so they are rare and therefore quite special to collectors of 'tool knives'. Price only seems high to those of us who are not collectors of such knives.
As for prices in LG4 i think the value is only as a relative guide; i.e. if knife A is given a value of $200 and knife B $100, these prices may no longer apply but knife A will still be a more valuable than knife B.
kj

[wlf]

Collectible values are not intrinsic. It's supply and demand at sales time.

As they say,it's worth what they pay,and GI Joe says "knowing is half the battle".


.

[RobesonsRme.com]

I cannot site a reference, but Bernard has stated, in answer to a question regarding same, that the dollar amounts he published were those one might reasonably expect to get from a knife dealer.

That's why I said they were "wholesale".

Charlie Noyes

[LongBlade]

Relative to what is being discussed and in reference to Levine's pricing he notes "Value" ratings in the index of knife makers that are used to determine value according to his criteria (e.g. MOP vs Ivoiry vs Celluloid, blades included etc) and accordingly you can work the math for knife type and arrive at a $ value (price at least relevant back in the 1990s - it appears most have increased in value according to inflation and perhaps supply & demand as well?)...

While I have asked the question offline I could not find anywhere in Levine's guide how he determined a "Value" rating for each maker (i.e., V, H, M, L)... Best I can determine from speaking to a few folks is it based on rarity (which plays into supply and demand), quality, desirability? Does anybody know or have an opinion on how he determined these value ratings? It is a question that I often ponder and also wonder if the "Value" ratings published have also changed over time... or just the prices...

Thanks!

[RobesonsRme.com]

I can tell you that he changed his rating for Robeson from the earlier editions when he published LG-IV.

He had them at "M" for medium and raised it to "H" for high.

Charlie Noyes

[RobesonsRme.com]

I suspect which brands or stamps were being sought by collectors had some influence, i.e. Case Tested, Remington, Winchester, etc.

And as you suggested age, such as Holley and quality such as the more noted Sheffield brands.

Charlie Noyes

[knife7knut]

Value is a VERY subjective title as is discussed almost as much as religion and politics and often with the same fervor.
I can't be sure but I believe when BRL compilied his guides(which took many years of research)he was basing his RELATIVE values on several parameters. Probably the most prominent one was what was popularly being collected at the time which included Russell Barlows and Case and Remington(mostly Bullet)knives. A second was companies that figured prominently in the formation of the cutlery industry(Wostenholm;Rodgers in England;Puma in Germany;and several manufacturers in the USA: Russell;L,F,&C;Holley;etc.).
I seem to remember him stating that just because a knife stamp was rare did not translate into value.If a person made only a few knives they were not necessarily valuable.
Another parameter was the quality of construction and the number of blades had a lot to do with value. In the end his advice was essentially:Collect what you like if you do not intend to make a career of buying and selling knives and if you do collect what OTHER people like which is a bit profound.
My collecting has always been done with an eye towards what I LIKE and not necessarily(but it's good to have)what is valuable or what other people want.Getting a valuable item for a pittance is always nice but not necessary.
Getting back to the original poster's item: Would I have bid over $400 for those pliers? If I collected similar items I might have but in a normal situation: Not on your life! Just my thoughts and opinions folks;your mileage may vary.

[LongBlade]

Thanks Charlie and K7Knut .. that helps to put some more perspective to it for me...

I seem to remember him stating that just because a knife stamp was rare did not translate into value.If a person made only a few knives they were not necessarily valuable.

-

I have also heard this in the past -ie, a maker who only made a few knives may not be valuable whereas a rare pattern by a known maker would have more value - at least that is my interpretation... Of course in my opinion (and I am not trying to go the route of "religion and politics" ) a quality maker who only made a few knives may be an exception to those thoughts...

[wlf]

I cannot site a reference, but Bernard has stated, in answer to a question regarding same, that the dollar amounts he published were those one might reasonably expect to get from a knife dealer.

That's why I said they were "wholesale".

Charlie Noyes

I've heard or read this was "one" of Levine's principle objections to the Blade guides following. You see a dramatic pricing increase in book V,which was very good for dealers and sellers.

It's the theme of new collectors ,"it says my knife is worth this in Such and Such Knife Book".

[RobesonsRme.com]

Krause or whoever owned the rights simply increased Levine's values by a factor equal to the cumulative inflation from the date of LG-IV to their 5th edition.

Levine protested vigorously at that, they wouldn't relent and he withdrew himself and his name from its publication.

Charlie Noyes