Take a look at this Remington and let me know what you think

[remington collector]

http://cgi.ebay.com/VINTAGE-REMINGTON-K ... 286.c0.m14

[jonet143]

the r100a example in stewart/richie shows the knife with the wrong scales as well. should be abalone. no mention of covered backsprings.

[Forensic Jim]

I have bought a lot of knives from 54rogers (Robert), and he has consistently had top quality knives and accurate descriptions. As to the authenticity of the knife in question, I wouldn't know, but I do know he is one of the best sellers on eBay.

[stockman]

I think the bone is right on this knife, in my books it shows this knife in bone. The master blade
looked like it was out of a newer reproduction knife to me.

Stockman

[muskrat man]

looks ok to me model # looks kinda bold unless it's etched, looks to have been scotch brited too to remove some spots.

[knife-nut]

There are a lot of pits above the tang on the main blade. Looks like it may have been welded. The pattern numbers looks like they have been stamped recently. The sheepfoot looks nicer than the rest of the knife. Maybe its been replaced.

[msteele6]

-

Boy, that is a poser, the blades, handles and so forth all match with the R100A pattern. Stewart and Ritchie note that the pattern number doesn't match the handle material so that's not a problem (all the R100's I've seen have bone handles). The blade looks like it was cleaned or else has a brushed finish (which would be very unusual for a Remington). Obviously, it can't have been cleaned though since the etch is still there. Maybe cleaned and re-etched? That pattern number looks a little funny with its rounded ends. I haven't seen one like it. The covered backsprings are correct, I think, I have seen quite a few R100's with the covered backsprings, I don't know if they were also made with regular backsprings.

This seller's knives all look good to me, and all the ones I've seen before now also looked good, for what it's worth. Sometimes photos can be deceiving.

I sure can't tell if it's right or not.

-

[ratlesnake75]

I agree too 54rodgers is a fine seller of antique knives--I had pleasure of meeting him at the Tulsa knife show this year--99.9% of knives that I have seen him sell are no doubt legit. This knife however slipped through his fingers like butter--I DON'T THINK IT IS RIGHT--Like others I feel pattern# has been recently added--The stampings are not the same and they should be--especially the rounded corners(dead giveaway on counterfieting).

[remington collector]

I have also bought knives from this seller and know he wouldn't intentionally sell a bad knife. But the main blade is totally wrong on this knife. The bone handles and shield are 100% authentic to this knife, as are the sheepsfoot and pen blade. The main blade-pull is wrong, choil and swedge are both incorrect, and the tang stamp used much later than the stamps on the other blades is also wrong. The U in USA is much too high, and the pattern # is obviously wrong.

[knifeaholic]

I agree with Rem Coillector...to me it looks like the main blade from a new Camillus-made Remington was ground down and stuck in an authentic old Rem frame.

I thought that was the correct pattern number though...what is the correct number for this pattern? It was the "Standard Dollar Knife" pattern.

[jonet143]

r100 - backsprings not covered

r100a - hildelgo etch

r100b - remington etch - standard dollar knife

r100r - enclosed backspring, punch, long pull

all bone




from sargent's

[remington collector]

Yes, R100A is the correct pattern for this knife, I meant that it was not a factory stamp.

[remington collector]

The R100A also came with the Standard Dollar Knife etch, and had a pen blade. The R100B has a punch blade.