Same but different 623597

The first Robeson knives were imported by Millard Robeson from England and Germany exclusively. This continued from 1979 until 1896 when Robeson began manufacturing knives in the United States. Since inception, the company has gone through several reorganizations & eventually ended up as a Queen Cutlery brand.
Post Reply
bkazz5
Posts: 544
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:58 pm
Location: Indiana

Same but different 623597

Post by bkazz5 »

I picked up a nice little 623597 with a Pocket Eze shield. When I got home I realized I already had one but it is significantly different. The one I just picked up has a shield. The one I already had does not. Also, the jigging on the two knives is very different. I notice the one without the shield has the pins as if a shield should have been there. Both have coined liners. Do you think the one without the shield has been rehandled? Did Robeson use both styles of jigging?
Attachments
20240513_161839~2.jpg
20240513_161854~2.jpg
20240513_161906~2.jpg
20240513_161958~2.jpg
20240513_162020~2.jpg
20240513_162048~2.jpg
ea42
Posts: 2991
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Wallkill, NY

Re: Same but different 623597

Post by ea42 »

The shield on that knife may have fallen off at some point in the past. You see that occasionally on old knives where there probably wasn't enough countersink in the shield pin holes to hold the shield in place. They didn't embed the shields very deeply into the handles back then as they needed the shield to stick above the handles so that when they sanded off the pin heads they didn't gouge the bone. Depending on the jigging sometimes you only see a very small patch where they flattened the bone a bit to accept the shield.

Eric
User avatar
RobesonsRme.com
Gold Tier
Gold Tier
Posts: 9920
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:44 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie.
Contact:

Re: Same but different 623597

Post by RobesonsRme.com »

I don’t have much of a problem with either of those knives.

I had a similar situation with a pair 622416 equal-end penknives. One had a PocketEze shield, the other had none and never had.

I suspect the differences in the bone and the size of the nail ease can be attributed to different time periods.

I agree with Erik re’ the missing shield, it simply fell off.

The only thing bothering me is the first digit in one of the pattern numbers does not appear to be a “6”, but more suggestive of an “8”, which would indicate patterned celluloid as the handle material.

That doesn’t mean the handles are not original.

I have had Robeson knives where the obviously original Robeson bone handles did not match the pattern number.

Both are very attractive knives.
DE OPPRESSO LIBER

"...Men may spurn our appeals, reject our message, oppose our arguments, despise our persons ___but they are helpless against our prayers. "

Sidlow Baxter
User avatar
1967redrider
Gold Tier
Gold Tier
Posts: 16352
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:23 pm
Location: Alexandria, VA
Contact:

Re: Same but different 623597

Post by 1967redrider »

It looks like they never cut out the space for a shield, but still pinned it.
Pocket, fixed, machete, axe, it's all good!

You're going to look awfully silly with that knife sticking out of your @#$. -Clint Eastwood, High Plains Drifter
ea42
Posts: 2991
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Wallkill, NY

Re: Same but different 623597

Post by ea42 »

1967redrider wrote: Tue May 14, 2024 7:50 pm It looks like they never cut out the space for a shield, but still pinned it.
I'll bet if looking at the knife in hand you'd be able to see a fattened area where the shield was. Oftentimes they (meaning knife companies, not just Robeson) just flattened the bone a bit without actually cutting a cavity for the reasons I stated above. It all depends on the jigging and the thickness of the shield.

Eric
Post Reply

Return to “Robeson Cutlery Company Collector's Forum”