What we know so far:
Tang stamps: "Parker Brothers Chattanooga TN" on front; "K126" on back, maybe this model # can help?
Box: "Eagle Brand Cutlery #95149
Thank you! I've been aware of this forum for a while now, first time posting. I started out with precious metal scales, and have gradually come to admire the practicality of "living" materials: stag, horn, wood.knife7knut wrote:Welcome to the forums! As to the knife posted:
"Sambar" stag as I understand it was antler material imported from India for use on knife handles and other uses. Whether Parker used Indian stag or some from other parts of the world is open to question. Parker Brothers stamp was first used circa 1978 and according to Jim's book there were 2,400 of that pattern produced in,"genuine stag" before being discontinued.
I really like stag scaled knives;especially older knives that the scales are thin and fit very closely to the knife. More modern ones usually have poorly matched scales that are very thick and sometimes uncomfortable to use.
Second cut stag usually resembles jigged bone and is usually burnt to color it.The scales on your knife are the outside (or bark)of the antler even though a lot of the grain has been ground away to fit them to the knife.
Terry, thank you for those. The "fatness"/thinness of the scales is not something I paid attention to earlier. Do you think they have anything to do with durability, or just a matter of aesthetic?terryl308 wrote:Here are some photos of my stag knives. Top one (2nd photo) is a new Remington trapper, next newer Remington jack knife, next is a 1991 Queen with not too fat stag scales and last is an old CaseXX trapper with stags (nice and thin) but pocket worn.Terry
I think it is mostly due to the fact that it takes less time to fit a handle to a knife by cutting it thick and just grinding down the ends to fit. On early(19th century) knives the stag was sliced very thin and if necessary steamed to straighten it for fitting to the knife.There was no grinding of the ends to make it fit.Here is one example.Xiphos wrote:
Terry, thank you for those. The "fatness"/thinness of the scales is not something I paid attention to earlier. Do you think they have anything to do with durability, or just a matter of aesthetic?




