Very well done!! Nice seam on the sheath also!
No scalping, Notchy Bob. I am very disappointedI am the new owner of this knife, and I am very, very pleased with it. @Runewolf1973 took the trouble to confer with me a couple of times during its construction, and he studied photographs of an original, on his own initiative, in his efforts to "get it right." I will say that he did just that.
It is hard to say what species of wood was used for the handle on the original Furnis scalping knife, but we know red tropical hardwoods were used frequently on scalpers. Runewolf is welcome to correct me, but I think this one is of pao ferro, which was used at my request.* If it isn't authentic, that's on me, not him.
For those folks who missed some of the other discussions of scalping knives, I would like to state that the void or un-filled gap in the underside of the handle is an authentic feature. That's how most of the originals were made.
Authenticity aside, this knife is solidly put together and scary sharp. The handle feels good in the hand, and the blade is of a very good shape for slicing and food preparation, and normal camp chores. I don't anticipate doing any scalping, but this would probably be just the tool for the job. Bushcrafters in the crowd should be advised that scalping knives like this one are designed to be light and nimble. It wasn't made for "batoning" oak logs, and this one won't be used for that type of chore. We carry hatchets for that...
This knife is authentic, practical, and very well made. The list of present-day knife makers who produce thoroughly researched and authentically constructed colonial and fur-trade era cutlery is very short, but Runewolf is on it.
I'm not a schill. It's just that I appreciate nice cutlery and historical accuracy, and I am very pleased with my new knife. I want to give credit to the man who made it.
Best regards,
Notchy Bob
*EDIT: The wood is padauk. See post #7, below.
Polecat
Many believe it was likely a one size fits all economical reason. It seems there were at least three sizes of the English scalper patterns made, plus larger and other models made for more single purposed uses. Of late, it is now believed that the French fitted most or all of their grips to the tang widths. Some of the evidence to support this is that the pin holes in the French tangs were arranged in more of a centered line, while the English tang pin holes are most always in a very noticeably lower than centered line, so as to be in a centered line position in their grips when assembled and finished. Unless new evidence has been found, the over sizing for the English knives left an open slot on the bottom that was not filled. So far as I know, no relic blades have yet been found to have any traces of any type of filler on a tang edge, and no written evidence of the slots being filled has shown up either. Again, so far as I know.
Just to follow up on @LRB 's comments (above, and in post #14), here is an illustration by Steve Allely of a trade scalping knife and a couple of blades:
I fully agree, and sometimes the facts are hard to digest. A few more facts or accepted as facts of 18th c. knives are that guards are pretty much non-existent except for double edged daggers or broken sword knives. Brass hardware is a real rarity seldom found on knives with the exception of knives made from broken swords, or sword parts. Iron was the typical common metal used for any knife hardware and for grip pin/rivets. Copper or brass handle rivets would be rare to non-existent. Multiple handle rivets in a geometric pattern is considered a 19th c. practice, and IMHO, I am not very sure the use of pewter on knife grips was as prevalent as we are led to believe, because there seems to be very few pewter mounted 18th c. knives that have solid provenance. Just saying.
I need one of these! Very nice job.
