All About Pocket Knives

This knife is stated to be 1997, Isnt it actually a 1987? (Judging from the shield and tang stamp)

This Ebay item

I am not calling it a fake, but the stamp in the picture is not very good. I would have to see it in person. But going what I see you appear to be right. I am not up on modern CASE knives. Give me a W R CASE & SONS and I can be much more helpful. Glad to see more knife knuts visiting this fine web site. COME ON Bill, you know the answer. Is this correct about this knife??

Good eye Hawke,

That is most deffinitely a 1987 stamped knife. Also... as you pointed out, that shield was only used in the late 1980s.

Bryan

I'm not much help on this one as I come only with more questions.
I didn't have much luck finding this exact knife. So, sometimes it's best to just "read" the knife, as you folks have done. It looks like the stamp you folks, Parker, and others, say was used in the 80s, if it is a right and correct stamp. It doesn't look like a 90s knife marking. Maybe just a typo?
My question is this...this does not look like a 62052 to me.....but rather a 64052. No? Some photos, but none of the pattern #?
Anyway, too many questions about this knife, from a big time seller of Case knives, for me to feel good about it. But I know there were lots of SFO runs and such, during that time period, so it certainly could be correct, and all this is just a lazy seller of a correct knife, and little ole paranoid me.

Bill

I e-mailed the seller and she told me in fact that it was a 1987 and she had a 97 that she was putting up for auction as well. Must have been a typo. BTW--When you email seller with questons, aren't they supposed to appear on the screen with the item up for bid?

Hey Matt,

Thanks for clearing that part up...

I think the questions only show if the seller chooses to have them show. I say this because some of the folks on eBay would be indignant and should be embarassed about their faux descriptions...

JMO.

Bill

I guess El Lobo and I should start our own apprasial business. We agree that something "just aint right" with this knife and further investigation should be requested. May be just fine, but in this business, a little caution can save you a lot of dollars. As I started in my early post, " I'm not saying it is a fake but?"

I have one more question for those of you who are good at Case stuff...

Shouldn't there be periods in the USA??? Or not?? Or, are they there and I'm missing them?

I'm certainly trying to learn more here.

Bill

Bill & PA, I agree with you both, I'm not sure but I belive the shield is from a different era it looks like the gold tone shield they used on some that has faded or was buffed and it don't look like it fits the handle right, all of the tang stamp diagrams I have show the bar in the letter A higher than the one in the pic and Bill your right on when it comes to the periods or dots in the usa

My 2 cents worth

yerout

Here's a nice said to be 1989 and has the same shield. I remember seeing another knife from 89 that had this raised shield and told Bryan I had seen it. When he first gave me info on the raised shield after I sent him the pic of it, he told me 1985-1988. Well now I see a 1989 kinfe thats has the circle shield on it. Maybe I was mistaken or in 1989 there were both shields used before the change over. Kinda goes with this thread.

ebay 1989 knife

Gosh,

Now do we need to be concerned with knives as new as the 90's????? Anything to cheat someone out of a buck !

Hawke,
You've got me confused here.
Are we comparing the shields in the first knife pictured (Congress) and this newest picture (Peanut)? Because they are quite different. Or did I miss something? The Parker's (Silverladdie) owned Case when that Peanut was made, and the variations, prototypes, and Special orders are probably endless. If I failed to understand your question, I apologize, as I'm getting older and slower.

As far as the two knives you've posted...
Nothing about the first knife looks good enough for me to buy it.
But the second knife looks correct to me.

JMO, of course.

Bill