The Golden Age of US cutlery

[orvet]

I can't wait to see what you find out Jim!

[coffeecup]

All knives would be cleaned and the joints flushed, then properly lubed, prior to beginning.

The knives would first be examined using several aspects of the earlier-discussed “Grandpa test”:
1) Hold the knife up to a light and look for gaps between the springs and the scales.
2) 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. Nothing should feel loose or raised or sharp.
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).

Blades would be tested for pull:
I use an improvised device (affectionately referred to as “The Goldberg Machine” in honor of Rube Goldberg) to measure “pull” or “snap” on pocket knives. Factories seem to worry about pre-load (how much force the spring exerts on the tang when closed), I’m more worried about how much it takes to open the knife.

Folks typically describe “pull” on knives on a subjective 1-10 scale, with “1” being the lightest and “10” being the heaviest. All the Goldberg Machine does is measure pull in a repeatable manner.

After about 300 WWII and earlier US-made knives had been tested, I worked out the following scale. To date, with more than 500 of those knives tested, the results are still the same. I’ve found 4 knives from this era that, when in good condition, clean, and properly-lubricated, exceed the 9-10 range.
Pull..........weight required to open
0-1..........(0-3.2#)
1-2..........(3.2-6.4#)
2-3..........(6.4-9.6#)
3-4..........(9.6-12.8#)
4-5..........(12.8-16.0#)
5-6..........(16.0-19.2#)
6-7..........(19.2-22.4#)
7-8..........(22.4-25.6#)
8-9..........(25.6-28.8#)
9-10.........(28.8-32.0#)

Further, when samples are large enough, it seems that >90% of the time, knives of the same pattern, from the same maker, will measure within a 3# range (1 point on the pull scale).

When testing some post-WWII knives, the scale required some expansion:
10-11..........(32.0-35.2#)
11-12..........(35.2-38.4#)
12-13..........(38.4-41.6#
13-14..........(41.6-44.8#)
14-15..........(44.8-48.0#)
15-16..........(48.0-51.2#)

Blades would be tested for horizontal and vertical play. This would be done in two stages.

First, a subjective test done by holding the frame in one hand and moving the blade to feel for positive “starts” and “stops” in the range of movement, AKA, “feeling for the click”. Past testing suggests that knives that exhibit enough movement that a “click” can be felt when new tend to get worse with use, while those that don’t “click” don’t get worse (absent abuse).

Horizontal and vertical blade play would then be measured by clamping the bolster of the knife in place, and using a dial indicator to measure movement side-to-side (horizontal play) or front-to-back (vertical play).

[coffeecup]

For convenience as I report the results, I’ve sorted the results by maker/pattern. This means the Utica-made Nessmuk trappers were in one group, the Remington 1123s in one group, the Remington 1173s in one group, the Remington 1306 in one group, the GEC 73-frame knives in one group, the GEC 23-frame knives in one group, and the GEC 42-framed knife in one group. These groups are still very small samples, but most are larger samples than I’ve ever had available at one time.

Results:
1) Hold the knife up to a light and look for gaps between the springs and the scales.
--Utica-made trappers (sample of 3): 1 gap noted, too small to accept a strip of 20# paper (typical computer printer paper)
--Remington 1123s (sample of 3): no gaps noted
--Remington 1173 (sample of 2): one gap noted, accepted 20# paper but not a Bicycle-brand playing card
--Remington 1306 (sample of 1): frame slightly bent (typical of knives carried in a hip-pocket), gaps on both sides, one accepted 20# paper but not the playing card, the other accepted the playing card but not a business card
--GEC 73-frame (sample of 10): one gap noted, wouldn’t accept 20# paper
--GEC 23-frame (sample of 9): no gaps noted
--GEC 42-frame (sample of 1): no gaps noted

2) 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. Nothing should feel loose or raised or sharp.
--Utica-made trappers (sample of 3): no issues
--Remington 1123s (sample of 3): no issues
--Remington 1173 (sample of 2): no issues
--Remington 1306 (sample of 1): The bend of the knife caused the ends of one scale to raise slightly; this was worn almost smooth. Shield was slightly raised at one end.
--GEC 73-frame (sample of 10): one knife couldn’t be opened, short of using pliers with copper jaw pads. NO spring action on this knife. (This is the knife that Mr. Lurker said was unusable; the knife was removed from the sample group at this point.) Edges of the covers and backs of the blades felt "square", no other issues noted.
--GEC 23-frame (sample of 9): Edges of the covers and backs of the blades felt "square", no other issues noted.
--GEC 42-frame (sample of 1): no issues

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 this doesn't mean perfectly centered, but rather, not touching the liners or other blades).
--Utica-made trappers (sample of 3): no rub noted between blades or blades/frame
--Remington 1123s (sample of 3): no rub noted between blades or blades/frame
--Remington 1173 (sample of 2): no rub noted between blades or blades/frame
--Remington 1306 (sample of 1): rub noted between blade and one side of liner due to bend
--GEC 73-frame (sample of 9): no rub noted between blades or blades/frame
--GEC 23-frame (sample of 9): slight blade/frame rub noted on one knife, no other issues
--GEC 42-frame (sample of 1): no rub noted between blades or blades/frame

[coffeecup]

The decision was made to test and report pull only on full-size blades, as there were no pen blades on the older (Utica and Remington) knives to compare to.

Pull
The Utica-made trappers and Remington 1123s were in the same range (about an “8” on the scale), with a 4# range. The GEC 23-frame knives were heavier, with an average pull about “11”, and a range of 8#. Similar results were noted with the 1173s (pull of 8, range of 4#) and 73-frame knives (pull of 9, range of 7#). The 1306 and 42 frame were very similar, with pulls of 6.

Play
Knives were first given the subjective “click” test. The only knife that had even a slight “click” was the 1306 (with bent frame).

The Utica-made trappers, Remington 1123s, and Remington 1173s averaged .028” of horizontal play and .025” of vertical play. The Remington 1306 had .038” of horizontal play and .04” of vertical play. (It should be noted that these are used knives made prior to 1940.)

The 23-frame knives and 73-frame knives from GEC averaged .019” of horizontal play and .01” of vertical play. The 42-frame knife had .024” of horizontal play and .033” of vertical play. In other words, play on the GEC knives (other than the 42-frame) was almost unnoticeable. I wouldn't have noticed it if I were examining the knives on a table at a show.

[coffeecup]

I guess the "discussion" comes down to Jacknifebill’s point that he felt GEC makes knives “the right way”. In this thread, I’ve sort of been defining “the right way” as what my grandfathers and great-grandfathers expected of any US knife company of their day. Other people might define it another way.

Objectively—“by the numbers”—there isn’t a lot of difference between the old knives and new in the areas of play, and that has always been an issue for many people.

When it comes to pull, the GEC knives examined were heavier, and less consistent between knives on the same frame. I'm not sure how much--or what--that means. Collectors today seem to think that heavier pull is a good thing, but users 100 years ago may not have agreed (and users today don't always agree). Way back when, pull—and consistency of pull—may have been particularly an issue when knives were mail-ordered from catalogs. Their situation wasn’t a great deal different from ours today: it is nice to know that you will get what you expect, when you are ordering sight unseen. But then again, maybe consistency of pull or lack thereof means little-to-nothing.

Beyond the objective data, what constitutes “quality” or “the right way” becomes subjective. What is important to one person may not even be noticed by another, and vice-versa. For example, by-the-numbers and subjectively, I think the 42-frame knife I examined (aside from the etch and shield) was fully the equal of any 1306 I’ve ever handled; someone else may disagree with me, over something I’ve never considered.

Subjectively, the GEC 23-frame and 73-frame knives felt somehow “unfinished” to me. It may be that the Uticas and Remingtons were originally equally “sharp-cornered” along the edges of the covers and on the backs of the blades, and have worn to what we see now. Perhaps, but I don’t think so. My impression, based on handling knives and examining some near-new Remingtons under magnification, is that the corners on the backs of the blades, and that the edges of the covers, were gently broken at some point during the manufacturing process.

That problem 73-frame
Mr. Lurker allowed me to experiment on the problematic 73-framed jack.

My initial thought was that the thing was just pinned too tight. The first thing I did was to gently spread the bolsters at the pivot pin, as much as I thought I could without causing the pin to sink. After several tries, I could open the knife with my thumbnail, barely, but the blades would just “stop” at various points through the range of movement. Friction was holding the blades in place, not the springs.

Knowing that Mr. Lurker had already said it was OK to take it apart, I spread the bolsters further. By the time the pin was slightly sunk on both sides, the blades had normal action. I took the knife apart to clean it up a bit, and re-pin it.

Using a cratex wheel in my Dremel, I broke the inside corners of the moving arms of the springs (basically de-burring). I polished a couple of burrs (raised by the moving arms of the springs) off the liners. Using a ceramic stone, I gently deburred the sides of the tangs (more of a burnishing operation than actual de-burring) and broke the corners on the backs of the blades. Then I re-assembled the knife. The corners of the covers and edges of the liners were burnished with a 1500-grit foam-backed pad, enough to soften the corners but barely lightening the bone there.

Other than the marks left by the pin-spinner I used, and a slight difference in the color of the pivot pin, you couldn’t tell the knife had been worked on—until you opened it. No gaps on the back, pull was right at 6 on both the main blade and the pen blade. I estimate that the “work” I did would add almost 2 minutes to the manufacturing process.

Now wasn't that an awful lot of verbiage to say that I think Jacknifebill is right, sometimes?

I'd like to extend my thanks to Mr. Lurker for the loan of his knives for this little exercise. I'm glad you like the re-worked 73!

Jim

[Dinadan]

This is an incredible thread! Thank you Jim.

I am especially interested in what you wrote about pull. It certainly seems to me that many knives these days are just too hard to open. That goes for USA made knives by a couple of makers and also cheaper imported knives. I do not recall noticing this problem back when I was young (1960s-1980s), but these days I have to be careful how I open several of my knives. (The USA made knives - I just don't bother with the cheaper knives that prove difficult.) In a recent A G Russell catalog I noticed that he is selling a "Steel Thumbnail" because his nails are not what they used to be. Maybe pocket knife springs are not what they used to be either!

[coffeecup]

Well, there is always the used market for older knives. I go through 8-10 WWII-issue EOs every year, passing them out to some of the folks who have trouble with the new stuff. Of the companies of today, CSC has a pretty good reputation for softer pulls without being too soft, as does Boker from Germany.