Camp Knife

[Elnathan]

I'd prefer to hear specific features of the knife criticized as not correct. "Looks modern" is pretty indefinite and we all seem to agree that modern chef's knives and ancient chef's knives and scalpers had the same shape. Obviously carbon fiber grips and stainless steel are inappropriate. But for a specific knife we'd all learn the most if specific features were criticized as "never seen before 1870", or whatever.

Since no one can prove something did not exist, the burden of proof is always on the person claiming that it is historically accurate.

My point was that criticizing a specific feature is helpful, and debatable. For example the debate about full versus half tangs. That is helpful and informative. The statement that pins were always iron, not brass, was helpful. Just saying a knife is modern does nothing, teaches nothing, and can't even be rationally answered.

The proportions of the blade aren't typical of trade knives, and the shape is wrong - too refined - for an interpretation of an "American Primitive" knife. The shape of the choil, particularly the way it curves back into the handle, is very modern, as is the shape of the handle, particularly the rounded end and the sophisticated cross-section.

It is a nice knife and no doubt thoroughly functional, but if you have ever looked through Grant's, Neumann's, and Minnis' books it stands out as obviously contemporary.

My initial joke was intended, in part, to defuse some of the crap-storm that I knew was coming.

 

[Black Hand]

Since no one can prove something did not exist, the burden of proof is always on the person claiming that it is historically accurate.

And yet you're asserting this design did not exist.

Because a design such as this did not exist in the 17th-19th century based upon available evidence and examples. If you know of even one, please feel free to post a link and educate us. Otherwise, you are merely arguing for the sake of arguing, have nothing to support your opinion and are frankly wasting time better spent....

 

[pondoro]

Gus and Wick always have good information. Their patience to answer questions from those who are less experienced and the lack of negativity in their replies are great examples.

 

[Black Hand]

Their patience to answer questions from those who are less experienced and the lack of negativity in their replies are great examples.

Tried that - However those with even less experience decided to hop on the anti-HC/PC train and attack anyone who had the audacity to suggest the knife was anything but a perfect historical reproduction. Discussions like this bring them out of the woodwork...

 

Since no one can prove something did not exist, the burden of proof is always on the person claiming that it is historically accurate.

And yet you're asserting this design did not exist.

I never said it didn't exist.

There's no need for you to lie or try to make people think I said something I didn't.

Here's what I've actually said up to this point...

"The posted knife does look more like these than something traditional."

"it's funny how we can talk about what a "hunting shirt" is or isn't, but suggesting that this is a modern design somehow draws criticism?

"There are many examples of modern knives with that shaped blade and handle. If this is a traditional design, show us the documentation and we'll stand corrected. That's how we learn."

"Can anyone provide a sketch or photo of a "dug" item?
Written descriptions like, "upswept blade" or "full tang" offer nothing to validate your design.

"It's not about being right or wrong, it's about education. We all take your word that it can be documented. Please show us a "dug example" to help educate us on this knife design."

"Since no one can prove something did not exist, the burden of proof is always on the person claiming that it is historically accurate."

 

[Gene L]

Pretty sad. A nice knife that suits my acceptance of a great knife. I suppose those hide-bound insistence of pretty sure non-documented nit-picking assumption of what might have been. Thousands of models that are not recorded.

What burns me is of a record of what is not recorded. It's a great knife that is very well done. Please don't assume that because a particular knife has not been "dug-up" does not indicate it has never existed. Knives are extremely varied. Most have NOT been dug up. They've been made in centuries before the 17th Century. They're utilitarian tools and not limited by historical existence. For me, that knife makes perfect sense as a tool, not a historical artifact.

 

[Black Hand]

In a historical context - no examples equals does not exist. You can continue to argue the point fruitlessly but as one cannot prove a negative, they should limit themselves to what we positively know exists. People will still go through great mental gymnastics to justify a non-PC/HC item, but mostly because they paid a considerable sum for an incorrect item or didn't do their due diligence in research and are too proud to admit their mistake...

 

Please don't assume that because a particular knife has not been "dug-up" does not indicate it has never existed.

I agree and by the same logic, you cannot assume that just because someone cannot prove that something did not exist, it must have existed and therefore is a valid reproduction of an historical item. That's the old "it could have happened" school of historical accuracy.

Like the forum says. Traditional Only - no modern designs. Do not post items unrelated to Muzzleloading. This is not a "general craft" category.

It does not say the "History that could have been" (because you can't prove it didn't happen) category. :wink: :v

 

[Black Hand]

https://edwardseducationblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/historical-method.pdf

 

[Gene L]

I think something is fundamentally wrong with your two guys reasoning. Or perhaps motives.

 

[Black Hand]

I think something is fundamentally wrong with your two guys reasoning. Or perhaps motives.

Ah yes, a sure sign that a person has lost the argument...name-calling.

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
”• Socrates

 

[Elnathan]

Pretty sad. A nice knife that suits my acceptance of a great knife. I suppose those hide-bound insistence of pretty sure non-documented nit-picking assumption of what might have been. Thousands of models that are not recorded.

What burns me is of a record of what is not recorded. It's a great knife that is very well done. Please don't assume that because a particular knife has not been "dug-up" does not indicate it has never existed. Knives are extremely varied. Most have NOT been dug up. They've been made in centuries before the 17th Century. They're utilitarian tools and not limited by historical existence. For me, that knife makes perfect sense as a tool, not a historical artifact.

In half this post you are arguing that the merits of this knife as a reproduction of a historical piece cannot be criticized because it is possible that there was once a knife that was made like this, and in the second half you are tacitly admitting that it is a modern design by arguing that the modernity of the design doesn't matter.

 

[Gene L]

Yes, you're partially right. I don't think it SHOULD be criticized unless one has authority to do so and I haven't seen this here, so far. I have no idea if it's historicaly correct, and don't care. It's a functional knife and that's good enough for a basic design of a knife. There must be thousands of knife designs that do not meet the strict definitions that are applied by some here. A knife is a tool for whenever knives are required, not a (IMO) holy grail of what has been recovered from digs.

I don't think a knife-maker should be criticized just because there are no historical models for it. That, to me, is an unfair criticism of a man who put a lot of work into a very good design for which there is zero evidence that it never existed.

I'm not name calling. I think the holier-than-thou insistence on such dogma discourages honest effort and reveals unpleasant character faults of those who insist on absolute adherence to what is possibly a limited outlook.

Forget, for a minute of what has been recovered and insert what is functional. Is there any reason to believe that the knife was only invented in the 17th century? I don't think so. That the only knives used were in North America? That seems like a limited interpretation. NA was a very small place back in that period.

It's a fine knife. I think it should be accepted as such: a fine knife. Let's not in our insistence on a possibly false assumption eliminate individual effort. It's forged, and there were many blacksmiths who interpreted forging a knife to their own designs. To me, it looks fine and period correct enough to pass muster.

 

[Black Hand]

To me, it looks fine and period correct enough to pass muster.

And yet, you would be incorrect to assume the latter...unless, as you admit (I have no idea if it's historicaly correct, and don't care.), one knows little about period knives. In that case, anything could pass as correct - even a Buck knife....

 

I think something is fundamentally wrong with your two guys reasoning. Or perhaps motives.

Ah yes, a sure sign that a person has lost the argument...name-calling.

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
”• Socrates

It is interesting that all I've posted has been about the knife, yet there are those who have lied and called names in an effort to win their argument.

So much for honest dialog.

 

[Elnathan]

On a more general note:

The frustrating thing about threads like this is that nobody here is all that rigid on matter of historicity. Folks don't get into fights about whether that purported 18th century knife has a pewter bolster or if the handle is made from domestic hardwood instead of the original tropical hardwood. Most of the "primitive" knives shown in Madison Grant and Neumann are of doubtful provenance, yet if I were to show the knife I made inspired by the examples in their books I doubt anyone would raise an eyebrow. A Woodbury school knife certainly wouldn't, and they are a modern design that looks "woodsy" with little foundation in the historical record.

The standard here for what constitutes HC/PC is really quite low, yet somehow we always end up arguing like mentally deficient 14 year-olds over the most basic of criteria.

Personally, I'm inclined to live and let live in matters of historical correctness, but it would be really, really nice if certain segments of the population here could make at least a gesture towards traditionalism.

 

[Elnathan]

Yes, you're partially right. I don't think it SHOULD be criticized unless one has authority to do so and I haven't seen this here, so far.

So what would constitute authority in your book?

I've spent about 20 years looking at pictures of old knives - including ancient and medieval knives - read a bunch about them, and even forged a couple myself. I'd hardly consider myself an expert, but I can tell when a knifemaker has been looking at contemporary designs and when he's been looking at the old ones. That isn't difficult to do if you know the basics.

 

[Gene L]

Well, perhaps you're an authority. Certainly more of an authority than I. I think you're defining the discussion to what has been, a false assignment on "traditional" which seems to be the operative word here. To my unschooled eyes, the knife looks "traditional" enough, although I doubt it or any knife made of modern steel would pass a forensic test. So I'm left with the belief that "traditional" is based entirely on outward appearance, which is fine with me. The knife in question is forged and not ground out of a billet of stock. It has a full tang. Traditional enough for me. I believe I read a post where brass rivets were said to be non-traditional.

This seems to be to be nit-picking, but I admit I'm totally non-traditional and rather indifferent to those who are. Does this disqualify my opinions?

 

[Black Hand]

I admit I'm totally non-traditional and rather indifferent to those who are. Does this disqualify my opinions?

With respect to identifying historically-correct knives - yes...

 

[Black Hand]

The knife in question is forged and not ground out of a billet of stock. It has a full tang. Traditional enough for me.

This knife https://www.bing.com/images/search...08021341753247914&selectedIndex=81&ajaxhist=0 fits your description, but would not be HC/PC for the 17th-19th centuries either...