Camp Knife

[Bo T]

I think you make a good point. It makes sense to set the limits on what is correct 'as far as we know' for a given time frame and local. I think it is proper to indicate that it is a modified design?, if one shows off the knife.
However, I keep racking my brain as I believe I have seen a similar blade profile from the depths of history. Perhaps Germanic or Norse. Of course the handle would probably have been different. Perhaps not as modern as might be assumed but certainly not traditional in way in which most are using the term.

 

[Elnathan]

I think you make a good point. It makes sense to set the limits on what is correct 'as far as we know' for a given time frame and local. I think it is proper to indicate that it is a modified design?, if one shows off the knife.
However, I keep racking my brain as I believe I have seen a similar blade profile from the depths of history. Perhaps Germanic or Norse. Of course the handle would probably have been different. Perhaps not as modern as might be assumed but certainly not traditional in way in which most are using the term.

Probably thinking of these war knives: War Knife/short sword

Probably looked like this with a handle: Cherusker Sword

 

[Black Hand]

I think you make a good point. It makes sense to set the limits on what is correct 'as far as we know' for a given time frame and local.

If you don't set clear parameters, then all parts of history are fair. This could lead to Colonial/Revolutionary War/Fur Trade events where Roman armor, Pilum and Gladius are "approved" because they are historical (though not PC for the 17th-19th Century).

I think it is proper to indicate that it is a modified design?, if one shows off the knife.

I have no major issues with the knife - it is a functional knife which likely works very well. However, when someone tries to pass-off the design as 17th-19th Century, this is where it becomes a problem. The techniques/materials used it its construction were around (Forging or stock-removal, wood slab handles, pins), but were not used to make a knife in this design. Much like the technology of the 17th-18th Century could have made a Marine K-Bar knife, but it wasn't done.

Perhaps not as modern as might be assumed but certainly not traditional in way in which most are using the term.

Traditional, in the sense of this site, has a specific definition. It is anything that was made/used in a particular time and place by a particular person using specific materials. We strive to the best of our ability, to replicate these items. This doesn't exclude the use of modern tools (grinders, power drills, sewing machine, etc) or certain materials (glues/epoxies, modern steels/brass, finishes, modern loom-woven cloth, modern tanned leather etc.), but the final product should resemble an original as closely as possible. There are also certain items, that while HC/PC for the period, are not correct for the person and/or place - e.g. Fire Piston in the American Colonies, Scottish Plaid Kilts (Except for Black Watch), Damascus blades on common knives, other.

Ultimately, a person should ensure they meet the historical parameters of Who, When, Where AND What (sometimes Why). Those who choose to also address the How in a PC/HC manner are ahead of the game, since they are also limiting themselves to the techniques, tools and materials available at the time and are learning even more.

This is what I'm trying to achieve for myself and urging others to at least acknowledge....

 

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

Yet you want to be involved in a category that says "Traditional Only - no modern designs"? The question is, why are you giving an opinion and what could it possibly be based on?

Perhaps your opinion on something you know and care about would be more relevant?

 

[Gene L]

What are your qualifications to determine that a knife falls outside the traditional spectrum, Jack?

Are we to assume you're omniscient on knife designs of two centuries ago, or is there room for doubt for the qualifications you've assigned yourself?

That's asking a lot. I have no idea of whether you're an expert, but I'm unwilling to take your implication at face value.

 

[Bagman]

Here's a prime example why many are reluctant to post something that they made and proud of on this website. I didn't read where Bagman was asking for a critique of his knife or the virtues of polished or unpolished steel blade. Too many cooks DO spoil the soup!

Looks like a fine camp/skinner knife to me and I'd be proud to have it. Good job, Bagman!

Rick

Yup....lesson learned.

 

What are your qualifications to determine that a knife falls outside the traditional spectrum, Jack?

You seem to have a real hard time quoting me. I never said it wasn't historically accurate. I said it looked very modern and that I was asking for some documentation for the period that it may have existed.

Let me repeat what I have said and please, this time try to ready it slowly......

I never said it didn't exist.

"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."

Let me repeat this again, just for you, IT LOOKS MODERN AND I'D LIKE TO SEE DOCUMENTATION FOR IT'S HISTORICAL ACCURACY.

I'm content to add nothing further, until some documentation is provided, but please, if at all possible, stop misquoting me or making stuff up.

 

[Billnpatti]

I'm content to add nothing further....

If only this were true. :bow: Let us pray.

 

[FishDFly]

I like it a lot. I carry two knives in the office.

Why 2 knives, if I was scared at work, I would
change work place.

???????????????????????

 

[Black Hand]

Here's a prime example why many are reluctant to post something that they made and proud of on this website. I didn't read where Bagman was asking for a critique of his knife or the virtues of polished or unpolished steel blade. Too many cooks DO spoil the soup!

Looks like a fine camp/skinner knife to me and I'd be proud to have it. Good job, Bagman!

Rick

Yup....lesson learned.

You have skills, that is evident. With a little study on period techniques and knife styles, you would make fine period knives. There are several excellent books and literally thousands of historical pieces available for study on the internet (museums, collections and other sites).

The primary issue was that you wouldn't accept the fact your knife design wasn't traditional and tried to justify your design without much to support your argument. Learn to accept the feedback and learn from it rather than digging in your heels and fighting when you are wrong...

 

[Gene L]

What are your qualifications to determine that a knife falls outside the traditional spectrum, Jack?

You seem to have a real hard time quoting me. I never said it wasn't historically accurate. I said it looked very modern and that I was asking for some documentation for the period that it may have existed.

Let me repeat what I have said and please, this time try to ready it slowly......

I never said it didn't exist.

"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."

Let me repeat this again, just for you, IT LOOKS MODERN AND I'D LIKE TO SEE DOCUMENTATION FOR IT'S HISTORICAL ACCURACY.

I'm content to add nothing further, until some documentation is provided, but please, if at all possible, stop misquoting me or making stuff up.

Actually, I'm not quoting you. If so and done so illegitimately, I apologize. If, however, I'm paraphrasing you, you're fair game.

All this nit-picking over an honest effort to forge a knife is disquieting to say the least.

Since you're replying on a computer, I assume you're not as "traditional" as you claim to be.

I wish (however without much hope) you and BH would acknowledge a very good knife that perhaps doesn't fit your narrow definition on PC. It's a big world out there.

 

[Black Hand]

What are your qualifications to determine that a knife falls outside the traditional spectrum?

Are we to assume you're omniscient on knife designs of two centuries ago, or is there room for doubt for the qualifications you've assigned yourself?

That's asking a lot. I have no idea of whether you're an expert, but I'm unwilling to take your implication at face value.

15 minutes on the internet or reading a couple of books on period knives would give anyone a pretty good idea of what is and isn't traditional for the 17th-19th century. Unfortunately, by your own admission, you are uninterested in learning yourself so you try to impugn the learning of others. I'd say that is pretty poor form...

 

[Black Hand]

Since you're replying on a computer, I assume you're not as "traditional" as you claim to be.

Straw-man fallacy

I wish (however without much hope) you and BH would acknowledge a very good knife that perhaps doesn't fit your narrow definition on PC. It's a big world out there.

But it's a small world in this site - French & Indian war through Civil War. This limits the scope...

Since you have no idea what I know or have done, perhaps you should stop throwing about unfounded insults.

 

[Gene L]

I'm willing to be advised on your claimed expertise. What constitutes your dismissive knowledge? Looking a photos? Personal experience? If you're NOT an expert, who is?

 

[Zonie]

If I didn't know it was getting to be the last of May, I would think we're seeing some severe cases of "cabin fever".

For those who forgot, Bagman's first post that started this topic said,

"
Finished a new Camp Knife. It's hand forged 1095 3/16 high carbon steel. The scales are walnut with two brass pins. 10 inches overall with a up swept 5.25" blade. Measures 1.75 inches at the belly. Convex grind.".

No mention of being HC or PC was made. In fact, it wasn't until the 21st post that Crewdawg445 mentioned the acronym "HC".

Quite frankly, as a moderator, I am more than a bit embarrassed when I see what this topic has turned into. :redface: :shake:

 

[Black Hand]

I'm willing to be advised on your claimed expertise. What constitutes your dismissive knowledge? Looking a photos? Personal experience? If you're NOT an expert, who is?

35 years of study on the material culture of Native American Tribes, 20 years of study on the material culture of the F&I through the Fur Trade period, personally seen original knives of the period and have made 20-40 knives of many types and styles (including modern AND period designs). And I do this as a hobby.

What qualifies you to question the qualifications of others who, by study, know far more on the topic than yourself (as you have stated several times in this thread)?

 

[pondoro]

I like it a lot. I carry two knives in the office.

Why 2 knives, if I was scared at work, I would
change work place.

???????????????????????

I'm not scared at work. I carry a largish folder for a lot of reasons. Self defense is very low on the list. I carry a tiny folder, that is also wood scaled and brass trimmed, a gentleman's knife, if you will. It can do some of the same things as the large folder. It also doesn't look evil, so I can take it out of my pocket in more places without scaring people.

When I'm gardening I carry the large everyday knife but substitute a second large, beat up, knife for the tiny knife.That knife is sharpened differently so it ho,d the edge under tougher use, like cutting tree root runners.

 

[Black Hand]

I carry two knives in the office.

Only 2? I carry 3 in just one pocket... :grin: Then there are the rest of the knives I carry on a regular basis.

 

[Elnathan]

If I didn't know it was getting to be the last of May, I would think we're seeing some severe cases of "cabin fever".

For those who forgot, Bagman's first post that started this topic said,

"
Finished a new Camp Knife. It's hand forged 1095 3/16 high carbon steel. The scales are walnut with two brass pins. 10 inches overall with a up swept 5.25" blade. Measures 1.75 inches at the belly. Convex grind.".

No mention of being HC or PC was made. In fact, it wasn't until the 21st post that Crewdawg445 mentioned the acronym "HC".

Quite frankly, as a moderator, I am more than a bit embarrassed when I see what this topic has turned into. :redface: :shake:

It is that ambiguous "traditional only - no modern designs" rule. A rephrasing or a formal clarification of where the line between "traditional" and "modern" lies might help settle things down.

 

[George]

In fact, it wasn't until the 21st post that Crewdawg445 mentioned the acronym "HC".

But it was obvious from the get-go that there was trouble with the knife. Elnathan started the countdown in the 5th reply.

Spence