PC Knives vs. Modern Designs & Materials

[crockett]

At the risk of repeating myself I think most of the folks that are using the term "Period Correct" or "Historically Correct" would be better off changing it to "Documented". I think what the period correct crowd really wants to know is whether any particular piece of equipment or clothing has any sort of documented history. The period correct crowd are history buffs, not just black powder shooters.
Here's an interesting example: a while back- on another thread- there was a discussion on fire starting, is char cloth PC? what was the PC use of a tinder box? Etc, Etc. I then said that I had always been sort of interested in learning how to use the Indian method of a bow and drill in starting a fire.
I was immediately asked- "Where's your documentation that Indians used a bow and drill?"
My instant gut response was "Oh come on...EVERYONE knows Indians used a bow and drill". My instant view was No Documentation was needed. Common knowledge.
The truth of the matter was- I didn't have any documentation. I was a product of the Boy Scouts who, as a youth saw some guy dressed up like a Plains Indian start a fire using a bow and drill.
Well, it may sound sort of odd but when I read a book I keep notes and put them into my data base. Nothing about the bow and drill. I asked around- to those that ought to know- I was told- nope, Indians used a hand drill, the bow has been found in European digs. A few bows in Alaskan digs but possibly of a later date- in any event nothing pre-1840 in the Great Plains, etc. (at least to date or to anyone's knowledge in the group)
I subsequently read Marcy's Prairie Traveler. Marcy went west in the late 1830's and wrote the book in 1859. As of 1859 Marcy on page 158 contends that the Plains Indians used nothing but a hand drill however the method could be vastly improved upon(by those reading his book) by adding a bow. In other words as late as 1859 Plains Indians - according to Marcy- were not using a bow in conjunction with fire starting.
Is any of this important. well....YES! It is to those who are trying to find out exactly how things were done at the time. Knowing these things just adds another level to the experience.
So... I'm as guilty as the next guy at making assumptions, etc. I think we need each other in order to advance and learn.
Once again- there is no PC "police" aspect to it. PC folks are not snobs and they are not telling other folks what to do or enjoy. In all humility they are just trying to figure out "what was what" during their period of interest.
I'm interested in the mountain man era. I started out with the assumption a mountain man had a single shot rifle and needed a big Bowie knife as a back up weapon for fighting Indians and Grizzly bears. From what I have learned over the years most mountain men figured knife fighting Grizzly bears, et al was a losing proposition. Most mountain men carried "skinny" bladed knives- butcher knives- sometimes scalpers. They used their knives for butchering animals. When facing a bunch of Indians or a Grizzly bear they "ran fer life". To me at least such things gives me a better insight into who were these mountain men and what their lives were like.

 

[tg]

I see your point but when I use the term PC/HC the documentation is implied or it would not be PC/HC.These terms are basicly short hand for "Items/practices/misc that have been documented by original writings, drawings and sometimes paintings or surviving examples with bonafide dating research having been done" it's a lot easier to just type PC/HC, and you are correct that there are no PC police, many, myself included question many things that are presented as PC/HC ofetn to further our own knowledge, often to prevent missinformation from spreading. The main thing to remember when one of these posts pops up is that no one is telling anyone they have to use.be PC/HC but if they try to pass off something for PC/HC that isn't someone will likely challenge it and this is as it should be for the good of the hobby. One can find a lot of gear to use and have a great time without everything having to be PC/HC, so it is best to not try to slip the terms thru for our own gratification out of respect to those who spend a great deal of time and sometimes money trying for a higher level of achievement in their own outfit.
The only time I have see negative conversations about PC/HC is on these forums and it is typicaly those who don't care about PC/HC who jump in and start a ruckus, probably to try and argue in something they have even though they claim not to care about it.There is room for everyone to have a good time even if their gear is at different levels on the historic ladder.

 

[Twice boom]

"I see your point but when I use the term PC/HC the documentation is implied or it would not be PC/HC."

I know its a fine line but what I think you are saying is all modern makers have to make copies of documented originals,or otherwise it is not period correct..Period correct in addition to making a copy of something old ,period correctness in my opinion also applies to using brass hilt as in example when nothing but iron hilts were documented ,providing the knife had the overall flavor of a knife made in 1770.
Just my opinion or I could not call myself a knife maker with any artistic ability if I were to go on copying other peoples work..And I think it is that way with anyone that takes his work seriously.. And I do care about PC/HC but at the same time I don't want to be bound by it to a point where I am making copies...

Twice.

 

[tg]

"I know its a fine line but what I think you are saying is all modern makers have to make copies of documented originals,or otherwise it is not period correct.."

No not at all, PC/HC has nothing to do with making copies, but it does have to do with building a 1770 gun and not using a lock that did not exist untill 1800, or usingsilver wire inletting on a gun from 1780 if silver wire cannot be documented before 1790, you can make a gun that is not a copy but has all the architecture and furniture types and lock options that were available to a maker during the time period the gun represents, there was a lot of diversity in the guns made by different builders from the same schools during the same time periods, yet even with all the possibilities some want to take a post 1800 gun style and try to add early traits to it to be good to go for the F&I period, this is just an example. You are in no way backed into a small corner of creative posibilities when making a HC/PC gun from any particular period.There will be some things one might really like...but they just were not used as far as we know and that is what we must go by, or you can build what you want which many do as there is no law stating your gun must be built within the parimeters or what we know of the gunsmithing of that period, just don't represent it as such and everybody is happy.

 

At the risk of repeating myself I think most of the folks that are using the term "Period Correct" or "Historically Correct" would be better off changing it to "Documented".

I didn't read the rest of your lengthy post, but.... Period Correct or Historically Correct mean documented. Otherwise, the term can't be used. The terms don't mean, "probably correct" or "I think it might be correct".

 

[Twice boom]

" No not at all, PC/HC has nothing to do with making copies, but it does have to do with building a 1770 gun and not using a lock that did not exist untill 1800,"

How can you have it both ways,when you say pc has nothing to do with making copies,when you say the item before it could be considered PC it has to be known ,or documented..
If I were to make a "like" item that's been documented as being original, am I not copying some one elses work? What's the fun in that..

I do however see your point about using a lock that has not been invented yet on an old gun..But that's going to extremes.

Twice.

 

[crockett]

Carl I agree with you, it's just that the thread started on page one with the question:

"Is it just me, or...with PC re-enactors..."if it has a blade and a handle", that it is historically correct"

In other words, it seems to me a lot of folks don't realize that documentation is implied with the term PC/HC so I was wondering whether it may be better to eliminate a lot of confusion and go ahead and use the term documented. Just a thought.

 

[Claude Mathis]

How can you have it both ways,when you say pc has nothing to do with making copies,when you say the item before it could be considered PC it has to be known ,or documented...

What he may mean is, you are basing your item on a known set of facts. Let's use a knife as an example.

Let's say there's a knife in a collection that has a certain shape to the blade, has a half tang, bone handle and pewter bolster.

You don't have to make an "exact copy" of the original, but if you make a knife that is very similar in shape, using the materials used on the original, chances are, most people would say it was historically accurate.

Now, if you change the shape radically, use an exotic wood not found in North America for a handle, and make the bolster from an alloy that did not exist "back then", chances are you will have a hard time convincing people that "it could have existed".

 

[Twice boom]

I agree and made the same point as you in one of my previous posts with this.
" Period correct in addition to making a copy of something old , also applies to using brass hilt as an example when nothing but iron hilts were documented for a particular style of knife,providing the knife had the overall flavor of a knife made in 1770."

Period correct to me means in like shape/style made from materials available in the period the modern artisan is representing .
Twice.

 

[jmforge]

Aye, there's the rub :grin: I haven't been around here for long, but it some that some people are MUCH more PC about PC. :wink: I hear arguments not only about whether such a piece could have or did exist way back when, but also if there is any documentation that Cougar Tail Joe the Muskrat Murderer actually carried something that nice whilst stomping about the Rockies. Are we nitpicking on the "context" side a bit much? For example, we know that beaver top hats EXISTED in 1830. They were the end product of the fur trade. BUT, is someone going to get their union suit in a wad if a guy shows up at a rendezvous wearing one because such hats never made it west of wherever? :shocked2:

 

[Twice boom]

"Aye, there's the rub I haven't been around here for long, but it some that some people are MUCH more PC about PC."

And that's the way its going to be ,always.

Unless,me, you and the guy down the street can somehow manage to set shop by the rivers edge and have his grinding wheels turned by the power of the water,have a dozen apprentices. Then buy his steel from the local smelter or have it shipped from across the sea for "like" 1770 steel and iron ..You see when you break it all down ,it is easy to see why trying to make something PC/HC that would even satisfy Carl would be taking a chance of turning oneself in to a Hypocrite in the eyes of someone little more PC than Carl,for lack of like material.. I say Carl, because he is well known for asking for the imposibble . Although I like the arse whoopings he gives to those that carry their fantasy to laughable extremes.He keeps our feet well planted.. :thumbsup:
Twice.

 

Unless,me, you and the guy down the street can somehow manage to set shop by the rivers edge and have his grinding wheels turned by the power of the water,have a dozen apprentices. Then buy his steel from the local smelter or have it shipped from across the sea for "like" 1770 steel and iron...

:shake: This is the tired old, "If you can't make it exactly the same, why bother", argument used to mock anyone who mentions historical accuracy.

The original post was ".. are there more modern designed knives and handle materials being excepted in the muzzleloading pastime and even the with PC re-enactors?"

The answer is yes.

 

[Twice boom]

"This is the tired old, "If you can't make it exactly the same, why bother", argument used to mock anyone who mentions historical accuracy."

oops,time for the :bull: flag to go up..
Hey Carl, could it be I am more PC than you? I'll tell you what you find me the old time cast steel with the same ingredients,include in that list some old 5' grinding wheels in all the right grits and couple young guys to turn them and I will make you a pc knife of your choosing that will knock your socks off.. But until then, I will use my power tools in place of the young guys for my manual labor, use my forge where its appropriate, and do the finishing with files and water stones for the polishing. You meanwhile Carl, can play the part of the PC policeman.. :v

Twice.

 

"This is the tired old, "If you can't make it exactly the same, why bother", argument used to mock anyone who mentions historical accuracy."

oops,time for the :bull: flag to go up..
Hey Carl, could it be I am more PC than you? I'll tell you what you find me the old time cast steel with the same ingredients,include in that list some old 5' grinding wheels in all the right grits and couple young guys to turn them and I will make you a pc knife of your choosing that will knock your socks off.. But until then, I will use my power tools in place of the young guys for my manual labor, use my forge where its appropriate, and do the finishing with files and water stones for the polishing. You meanwhile Carl, can play the part of the PC policeman.. :v

I don't see how anything you just said relates to what I said, but have a good day.

Oh, by the way...

I say Carl, because he is well known for asking for the imposibble .

When you make statements like this about people you need to back them up. Show me one post where I asked for anything or defined what should be PC?

 

[Twice boom]

For a guy that does not know,or does not care to define what PC is /should be ,you sure as heck make lots of noise on this board..
But the bottom line is this. The points I was trying to make did not include being argumentative with you. You too have a great day..... :thumbsup:
Twice.

 

[pichou]

:shake: This is the tired old, "If you can't make it exactly the same, why bother", argument used to mock anyone who mentions historical accuracy.

Well, a maker should be able to make exact copies of originals before he makes reasonable interpretations. Someone who doesn't have the skill or the eye to make copies won't do anyone a favor with interpretations.

:v

 

:shake: This is the tired old, "If you can't make it exactly the same, why bother", argument used to mock anyone who mentions historical accuracy.

Well, a maker should be able to make exact copies of originals before he makes reasonable interpretations. Someone who doesn't have the skill or the eye to make copies won't do anyone a favor with interpretations.

I was referring more to the people who cite modern steel or internal coil springs, not the skill of the artist. There are people who criticize those who try hard to be historically accurate, by telling them that "nobody can be 100 percent accurate". It's their way of justifying all their "not even close" gear.

 

[tg]

"I was referring more to the people who cite modern steel or internal coil springs, not the skill of the artist. There are people who criticize those who try hard to be historically accurate, by telling them that "nobody can be 100 percent accurate". It's their way of justifying all their "not even close" gear."

Yep, and the way this forum is headed it makes being somewhere else seem like a very good option.

 

[pichou]

Yes, people will argue till they are blue in the face, trying to justify something they just bought.

I prefer to argue with people BEFORE they buy. :wink:

 

[crockett]

Well this thread is getting sort of long, I'll add one more thought- I'm starting to wonder if a lot of our disagreement comes from the fact that we have different personas. For example I'm not sure but I think Pichou is pretty much interested in the voyageur type era. Now most of the voyageurs were outfitted by a fur company, such as the NW Co. or the HBCo. and there are pretty good records of what equipment was supplied. So...if you are an engagee of a fur company and you want a sheath knife- you pretty much need a scalper- the kind Pichou has posted photos of on several occasions. On the other hand if you are a long hunter from Kentucky there is a lot more "wiggle room" for example look at John Baldwin's book on primitive sheaths and knives- no two are really alike. Most have a dropped point/spear point instead of the modern type clip point and many are fitted into a stag crown. It would seem to me as long as a long hunter's knife conformed to such general lines you are good to go.