Is This #64 Canoe Legit?
-
Daryl
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:02 pm
- Location: Southern California
Is This #64 Canoe Legit?
I just picked up this Queen #64 canoe, but when I got it home and looked more closely, several things seem "off" about it. Most glaring is the fact that the tang stamp is upside-down! Then there's the feel/action of the thing. My other #64s (I have four of them) are butter-smooth when opening and closing. This one almost requires a vice and a crane to open the large blade, and the small blade is even harder. Also, the handle material isn't quite as smooth; it doesn't feel quite as wonderful in the hand.
According to the Queen tang stamp guide, this tang stamp would be correct for a 1973-1975 time period. The underlining tail of the Q beneath the "ueen," however, is shown as slightly descending in the tang guide. On this knife, it appears to ascend sightly.
The "man in the canoe" etch is pretty faint, and is maybe "iffy" too.
Side-by-side with one of my other #64s, the pin locations look okay, but both bolsters on the new one are shorter. The large blade shape looks about right, but the small blade's tang is curved instead of squared, and the small blade is narrower. The small blade and its tang almost look like a cross between my Queen and Camillus canoes.
In the first comparison photo, the questionable one is on the right, the one with the darker scales.
What do you all think?
(The last photo is of my "good" #64.)
According to the Queen tang stamp guide, this tang stamp would be correct for a 1973-1975 time period. The underlining tail of the Q beneath the "ueen," however, is shown as slightly descending in the tang guide. On this knife, it appears to ascend sightly.
The "man in the canoe" etch is pretty faint, and is maybe "iffy" too.
Side-by-side with one of my other #64s, the pin locations look okay, but both bolsters on the new one are shorter. The large blade shape looks about right, but the small blade's tang is curved instead of squared, and the small blade is narrower. The small blade and its tang almost look like a cross between my Queen and Camillus canoes.
In the first comparison photo, the questionable one is on the right, the one with the darker scales.
What do you all think?
(The last photo is of my "good" #64.)
- Doc B
- Posts: 3700
- Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:57 pm
- Location: San Antonio
Re: Is This #64 Canoe Legit?
I know nothing about whether your knife is legit...but those certainly look like 2 different knives...there's a lot of differences.
I'm sure someone, with more knowledge will help out.
I'm sure someone, with more knowledge will help out.
Heretical Refurb / Mods of cheap old folders, since late 2018
-
Daryl
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:02 pm
- Location: Southern California
Re: Is This #64 Canoe Legit?
Thanks, Doc. It certainly is different from all my other #64s.Doc B wrote:I know nothing about whether your knife is legit...but those certainly look like 2 different knives...there's a lot of differences.
I'm sure someone, with more knowledge will help out.
-
alabama
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:08 pm
Re: Is This #64 Canoe Legit?
not positive-it looks ok to me-Delrin not popular with counterfeiters-whoever stamped it was high...
-
Daryl
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:02 pm
- Location: Southern California
Re: Is This #64 Canoe Legit?
Thanks!alabama wrote:not positive-it looks ok to me-Delrin not popular with counterfeiters-whoever stamped it was high...
I can't decide, either. Sometimes I look at it and think, "Well, someone just screwed up." Other times, "What the *** is this thing??" Like you said, it seems a strange thing for someone to counterfeit.
- bdev
- Posts: 1097
- Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:37 am
- Location: Hudson Valley NY
- Contact:
Re: Is This #64 Canoe Legit?
I'm going to take a wild guess and say that it might be a knife made during the closing months of Queen. Maybe made up of old stock and new parts. 
Queen City. My favorite! Bruno. 
-
Daryl
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:02 pm
- Location: Southern California
Re: Is This #64 Canoe Legit?
Hmmm. Maybe so! It does seem to be a mish-mash of different parts.bdev wrote:I'm going to take a wild guess and say that it might be a knife made during the closing months of Queen. Maybe made up of old stock and new parts.
Was there a period when the bolsters were that short? The bolsters on all my other ones are the longer style.
- Greenman
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:31 pm
- Location: The Dark Side of the Moon
Re: Is This #64 Canoe Legit?
This image may help. It’s taken from page 3 of Queen catalog #50 (1972-1978). The canoe pattern is #64 at the bottom left hand corner. My apologies for the poor quality, low resolution photo.Daryl wrote:Hmmm. Maybe so! It does seem to be a mish-mash of different parts.bdev wrote:I'm going to take a wild guess and say that it might be a knife made during the closing months of Queen. Maybe made up of old stock and new parts.
Was there a period when the bolsters were that short? The bolsters on all my other ones are the longer style.
Blow-up
Josh
/|\
“Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible god and destroys a visible nature, unaware that this nature he's destroying is this god he's worshipping.”
— Hubert Reeves
/|\
“Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible god and destroys a visible nature, unaware that this nature he's destroying is this god he's worshipping.”
— Hubert Reeves
-
Daryl
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:02 pm
- Location: Southern California
Re: Is This #64 Canoe Legit?
Thanks, Greenman. That's the knife! Except fot the upside-down tang stamp? But, yeah!
- Greenman
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:31 pm
- Location: The Dark Side of the Moon
Re: Is This #64 Canoe Legit?
Daryl wrote:Thanks, Greenman. That's the knife! Except fot the upside-down tang stamp? But, yeah!
Josh
/|\
“Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible god and destroys a visible nature, unaware that this nature he's destroying is this god he's worshipping.”
— Hubert Reeves
/|\
“Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible god and destroys a visible nature, unaware that this nature he's destroying is this god he's worshipping.”
— Hubert Reeves