All About Pocket Knives

I am a total sucker for large folding knives and recently fished this one off "the bay". The seller did not market it as a Robeson, or even mention a brand name, so I am happy with the knife even if it isn't a real Robeson. The knife measures exactly 4". As you can see in the pictures, the only visible tang stamp is on the mark side of the pen blade, and it looks to me to be the Robeson stamp used from 1896-1899. I have looked for any hint of a stamp on the primary blade, and don't see any marks that I can say conclusively are the remnants of a tang stamp. And, I don't see any hint of either blade being a replacement. The knife did have a poorly done patch next to the pile side rocker pin, which I have redone, and I have "zapped" the cracks on that side. Any thoughts or information would be greatly appreciated. Charlie, I'm hoping that you will chime in!

Can’t help you out Herb, except to say I like it!

It looks like a real Robeson to me.

I have no info for you Herb, but it sure is a cool good looking knife! Really like the butterscotch color!

Looks good to me, but Charlie Noyes (RobesonsRme.com) is the Robeson man. Hopefully he will see this and enlighten us all with his thoughts on it, or you could send him a PM.

The knife looks legit to me. The stamp dates the knife from 1894-1922 from the info I have. I can't see the liners but I believe the pattern # could be 622037. That would be for a 4" Jumbo Jack with bone handles, two blades, brass liners and nickel silver bolsters. Charlie may come along and correct me on this later. Nice find though. Rick.

Mumbleypeg wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 5:46 pm Looks good to me, but Charlie Noyes (RobesonsRme.com) is the Robeson man. Hopefully he will see this and enlighten us all with his thoughts on it, or you could send him a PM.

Ken. I sent him a PM on Monday (3 days ago) and its still in my outbox. I hope he's OK.

herbva wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 10:54 am

Mumbleypeg wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 5:46 pm Looks good to me, but Charlie Noyes (RobesonsRme.com) is the Robeson man. Hopefully he will see this and enlighten us all with his thoughts on it, or you could send him a PM.

Ken. I sent him a PM on Monday (3 days ago) and its still in my outbox. I hope he's OK.

I surely hope so also. Give him some time - not everybody logs in here daily. Then there’s the scenario of actually noticing you have a PM waiting……………

Ken

Hopefully Charlie will get back to you, Herb. Awesome find!

I am fine. Didn’t see this post and didn’t get the PM because my inbox was too full.

Even after trimming it down to five, it wouldn’t load the three that were on hold.

Looks Robesonesque to me.

Lack of a tang stamp on the master is a bit bothersome, but the bone is Robeson and the pattern familiar.

Pretty sure it isn’t an 037, though. That was a 4” equal-end cigar pattern.

Trying to date a Robeson knife by any stamp other than that on the master blade is simply not possible. Secondary stamps mean nothing, as far as I have been able to ascertain.

I have a four blade pearl with that stamp on all three secondary blades and I guarantee it doesn’t date to the nineteenth century. It might well date to the 1920’s, but frankly, right now, I don’t recall exactly what is on its master blade. I’ll have to pull it out of storage and have a look.

All that is to say I think your knife is fine, but I have no idea why its master blade is not marked and any idea I might postulate here would be pure speculation.

Thank you very much Mr. Noyes. Everything you said makes perfect sense. I have encountered quite a few knives of different brands with secondary blade tang stamps that predate the primary blade stamp. In other words, as I have read and/or heard many times, it was not uncommon for knife manufacturers to use up left over stocks of secondary blades on newer knives. I'll just have to assume that the stamp on the primary blade was a lighter stamp and wore off before a heavier or deeper stamp on the secondary blade. Thanks again and best regards.

I magnified the photo of the tangs as much as I could. I see nothing. I don’t think it ever had a stamp.

Lots of folks call such knives, regardless of maker, “lunch box knives”, meaning they were cobbled together by an employee and taken from the plant surreptitiously.

That would, taken altogether, make for a lot of dishonest cutlers.

I find it funny that we routinely refer to knives being “cobbled” together, when that tern refers purely to the making of shoes.