PC Knives vs. Modern Designs & Materials

[Twice boom]

My thinking exactly....
Twice.

 

[paulvallandigham]

I don't think asking people to restrict the knives they display here to HC copies, or interpretations is asking too much. Simply avoid using synthetics, that did not exist before 1865. Avoid some of the modern designs, like the saw backs on knifes you see on every " Combat" knife sold these days, or the serated edges on the knife blade. If you look at magazines showing modern knives, there are some very bizarre things being made and sold, at very high prices, that come out of comic books, and Sci-fi movies. They don't belong here, either.

There are plenty of traditional knife designs, show on plenty of internet sites- so you don't even have to go to a museum these days to see samples--- for people to replicate. From short swords, to single blade pocket knives, there is more than enough variety to keep knife makers busy for many years. Then you have the knife sheaths, and scabbards. All the variations available can keep knife makers happy for many years.

 

[jmforge]

I will qualify my remarks by admitting that I am a dilletante metal pounder who makes the occasional bowie knife :grin: I am new here and am not sure if PC usually means "rustic" "crude' or "cheap" I have seen some comments about knives with forge marks not being authentic because anyone who could make such a knife woundt leave them on. Yet a lot of the knives I see do not look like something that a knifemaker of that skill would make. They look like something that either the local blacksmith would have pounded out or the owner make himslef. Remember that a fully engraved Purdey sporting rifle and a full boat Samuel Bell ivory handled bowie or dirk is, in fact PC from pre Civil War and even pre-1840. Ditto for exotic woods like ebony if you are talking about something like a Schively bowie. :thumbsup:

 

[tg]

The appearance of items such as patina, scratches and such are pretty much in the eye of the beholder as to whether it has gone "to far" many want something that would have been common and widely used in a particular time period, and when adding some age or wear as to not have a new knife in hand the individuals satifaction as to how it loks is the only opinion that matters, just mention adding patina to a barrel and from every corner nook and crany they come out yelling 200 year old guns!....and they have not even seen the item once the docum. is there to validate the item as being around from a particular date then the loks is a matter of opinion.With knives some want the backwoods in a hurry look and others want the upper crust style and many go with what was most common diring much of the time we do ..the plain old butcher knife. I have seen some guns packing some very beautiful knives that personally qustion someone in the boondocks would likley spend what little they have on, but again the probability of someone having something is rarely an issue in this game, the fact that the item existed in a time and place is foremost.

 

[jmforge]

Good points. It seems to me that a lot of the knives that folks would have carried in the 19th century would have been what we in the custom knife game refer to as "factory knives" brought out into the field as "trade goods." I read the other day that Samuel Bell had "factory knives made to his specifications in England to sell to folks in his original Philadelphia shop who couldn't afford one of his hand made creations.
I wonder how much of our view of old knives is colored by the current opinion held by many hunters and outdoorsmen that whatever you can grab out of the display case at Wally World is good enough in contrast to what the same person will spend on things like firearms, camo clothing, archery gear, etc. Folks were making some very fine knives in the "New South" during latter part of the fur trade era, but I don't really know how many ofthose would have filtered out into the hills. Same thing with the post Gold Rush works of art made in San Francisco by folks like Michael Price and Will & Finck.
As for patina, i agree. A carbon steel knife will aquire a patina in fairly short order, especially if it is used to cut up acidic food like onions, citrus, etc. But what it wouldn't have if the owner took even marginally decent care of it is rust or visible pitting. It might be reprofiled and sharpened down to 70-80% of it's original size, but it would still be shiny, if perhaps a little bit gray in color. :grin:

 

[LaBonte]

But what it wouldn't have if the owner took even marginally decent care of it is rust or visible pitting

With a all due respect that's easier said than done when one spends 24/7/365 in the weather, especially the wet when one's gear may be soaked through for days or even weeks with no real chance to dry things out or clean properly. (FWIW - voice of experience not just book learning) or supposition)
As noted there were both ends of the spectrum and all points in between and some times even new wasn't all that new - J Henry was castigated at least twice by the American Fur Company for the poor quality of the exterior barrel finish on their guns, including pits.
I love fine knives, but I also hold a place dear in my heart for the less fancy pieces home built or local blacksmith built - while all cutlers were blacksmiths not all blacksmiths were cutlers and in the SW there was and still is a tradition of forging knives to shape with little grinding or filing - but they ARE NOT crude as some of our current makers seem to think, just left with a hammer finish, but a FINE hammer finish - example
here's one by mi companero Tai Goo - the first pic is in the works - note there are NO huge hammer marks, it is VERY clean forging - the man knows how to use a hammer...

The finished knife with the scale removed and minimal edge shaping by hand with files

 

[jmforge]

Tai has been doing that for a long time and has gotten rather good at it!!! I saw Steve Schwarzer take the edge on a small hunter down to that ridiculous level of finish at Batson's hammer-in a couple of years back. He was using the japanese "wet forging' technique to blow the scale off of the blade. I am still at the "forge thick, grind thin" level relatively speaking. The advantages to forging that close to shape are the similar today as they were in the old days......conserve valuable materials. Of course, back then, you were saving very valuable high quality steel. otday, you are more likely trying to conserve very pricey grinding belts. It is hard to imagine anything being more expensive than using more coal or propane, but belts like Norton Blaze can give you sticker shock right quick!!!! :grin:

 

[LaBonte]

Howdy Joe and welcome - if you look at my profile you'll see I'm the other half of Wild Goo so yep I know Tai's work real well.......

 

[jmforge]

I finally figured out that was you, Chuck. :grin: You and Tai have done some amazing collaborations. Do the hardcore guys on here give you grief because they are not exactly "PC"? lol Mine sure aren't at this point. They tend to be more from the Fiskian period as opposed to the Rocky Mountain Fur Trade era. :wink:

 

[omarick1948]

Is it just me, or are there more modern designed knives and handle materials being excepted in the muzzleloading pastime and even the with PC re-enactors? I know that there are some makers who might say, "if it has a blade and a handle", that it is historically correct, but I also think that MOST here, understand my meaning. Recently, there was a little debating about Trap Spring Knives as being authentic PC and the debate will probably continue "Pro or Con", but a knife like that seems closer in design than knives with some exotic South American or rare African wood with other manmade materials etc.

I like just about ALL cutlery, but all the exotic woods and added "FooFraws" seem to be side tracking serious historic woods and designs of the 18th and 19th Centuries!

Am I right in my observations and concern or just very close minded to modern trends in muzzleloading?.... :hmm:


Rick

And welcome to the Knife Makers Guild Message Board???????

 

[jmforge]

Another question regarding any item is affordability. There were a LOT of fancy things available, knives or otherwise, prior to 1865, but they were priced accordingly like fancy handmade stuff always it.. If you are going for the straight mountain man vibe then I think that you would be accurate in saying that the typical trapper couldn't have afforded a knife like a Sam Bell with an exotic hardwood handle or silver sheath. That's not to say that he wouldn't have wanted one, but I suspect that he usually had a BIG shopping list of essential items to spend his hard earned money on when he came down out of the mountains.. :wink : What little I have read so far tells me that a trapper could make 3-6 times the average wage at the time, but it wasn't convenient for him to take all of that disposable income anywhere where he could get good value for his money.

 

[crockett]

Well I guess I've been sort of quiet on this to see what everyone else was saying. Maybe I can break through some of this.
PERIOD CORRECT may be the wrong term. After all- what's period correct? For example, if I get a lot of period correct materials- for anything- not just knives- and I make some really odd ball article, well......who is to say it could not have existed? How do you prove it did not? Can't be done.
Maybe it would be a lot better if we used the word DOCUMENTED. That says it all. It applies to any piece of equipment. For example the Lexington Historical Society has a penny knife that was taken off a British Soldier who had been wounded at the Battle of Bunker Hill. That is a documented article. If you make a copy of that knife then you have a piece of equipment that is correct for that time and place although the degree of its common usage could still be questioned. In any event let's say you make such a knife and you attend an event where someone has questions about it. You simply say it is a copy of a knife in the Lexington Historical Society that dates to 1775. Easy, easy, easy.
The only problem I can see with the Documentation approach is there are some articles where not much Documentation exists for a variety of reasons- sometimes because the article was uncommon and other times because it was so common that none of the writers of the day even gave notice of it- assuming a common knowledge.
Is everything that I carry a copy of a Documented article? No. I tell people it isn't- so what? I have no problem with that. I do however try to be moving ever more in the direction of documented gear. Can any one get there- to 100% Documentation? Probably not if you want to take things to the limit. Where do you obtain cast steel these days that is a duplicate of earlier times?
Now heading in the other direction we have the fantasy pieces- and that includes knives and guns. I have been thinking about making a 32 caliber squirrel rifle using whatever I want, nothing Documented about it. As long as I know it and represent it as such- I don't see the harm. If however I take the gun along on a trek where everyone has spent a lot of time, effort, and research on getting all their gear Documented- then I think that would be unfair to what the others are trying to create. That doesn't seem unreasonable does it?
I think a lot of Rendezvous events are sort of loose- that's good because these are the events the new comers attend. I think treks are perhaps the better place to be more strict because the group is smaller and focused on a particular time and place. That doesn't mean documented gear should not be at a general Rondy event- it should- but folks need to cut the new comers and the fantasy crowd some slack since the event is attended by a larger- more diversified group.
So... for those who think there may be PC Nazis floating around NOT TRUE, scratch your fleas any way you want. The historically correct die hards actually are still on their own learning curve and are using this forum to get information. When they ask for documentation they aren't trying to bust somebody else's chops- they are looking for the documentation in their own interest- so they can learn and grow. and that's a fact.

 

[Claude Mathis]

Crockett,

Thank you for a very insightful post. :thumbsup:

 

[freund]

THE HOUSE BROTHERS:

I know the House brothers and have regular contact with Hershel and John House. I have had less contact with Frank House. I know Hershel favors the Iron Mounted Southern Mountain Rifle for first time builders in his classes. In this way he is able to do every thing in his power (the student has some responsibilities too!) to help each individual complete or nearly complete a gun in the allotted time. These guns have been identified as "Woodbury School" guns. Early on THIS WAS NOT A COMPLIMENT! It is more likely to be used in a complimentary way at the present time. As to price! If you have a work (gun or otherwise commissioned) and it is hand made with a custom fit would one expect to get it at "kit" prices!? Please keep in mind, these folks are actually trying to make a living in their craft or trade. THEY ARE NOT HOBBY BUILDERS!

 

[tg]

"who is to say it could not have existed? How do you prove it did not?'

Unfortunately this is the line of thought many use to justify what they have or want to use, and can muddy up the waters considerably for the newcommers.


As for the House Brothers I doubt that there are any better gunmakers around, my point is that just because they use iron mounts on a circa 1770 gun does not make it a historicaly correct item, I think much of their work is of the "new school" which takes making ML's past what is documented and into a form of art more than historic replicas, many of these guns being worth more than well made originals in good condition.

 

[Claude Mathis]

"who is to say it could not have existed? How do you prove it did not?'

Unfortunately this is the line of thought many use to justify what they have or want to use, ...

Yes, you cannot prove a negative.

You cannot "prove" that Davy Crockett didn't wear a Roman helmet at the Alamo, but that alone is not a good place to start to make a case that he "could" have worn one. :wink:

 

[freund]

TO TG,

I can't give year and volume but Wallace Gusler wrote a recent article for Muzzle Blasts (I believe I'm recalling correctly) that did document a rather plain, relatively speaking, iron mounted southern mountain rifle (Carolina's). This was after many years of debating the historical documentation. One gun does not prove the whole point but it did give a bit of perspective to the "brass only" point of view.

It seems some of this debate has to do with availability in more remote parts of early American and the ability to purchase/cast brass parts compared to smelting iron and forging iron parts.

It does not answer the two part question - "Why so many brass mounted rifle guns and so few iron mounted rifle guns?"

 

[Twice boom]

"As for the House Brothers I doubt that there are any better gunmakers around, my point is that just because they use iron mounts on a circa 1770 gun does not make it a historicaly correct item"

I agree, but then again I suspect they too have a persona they adhere too. I do not believe their persona is to be copy cats of those before them . More accurate, I think would be they like to be viewed as equals to any of the old masters doing their own artistic thing much like the old masters themselves did while keeping the style and type of gun that was known to them durring the period they lived in.. If the Houses/ Huagh lived in the 18Th century I suspect we today would view their work equal to the old masters.IMO

And as far as the Huases being the best? Lets not forget Jack Huagh ,Steven Dodd Hughes and few others.

We at times are very short in thought when we talk Period Correctness,IMO. We short change the individual that dares to exercise his artistic ability within the confines of a chosen period he wants to work in. We expect him to make exact coppies of what the old masters did befire we conceder them period correct in what they make in their chosen field . Be it cuttlery / fire arms/cobler or tailor..And forget it is /was their right to exercise their own style of creativity..And with that , we don't give them their dues..
I see where one of Jacks guns over at the TOTW is going for Ten Grand.. I suspect that gun in ten or twenty years the price will double or close to it..

Just my thoughts on those present day masters that have earned the right to be considered as equal to the old ones.
Twice.

 

[pichou]

You cannot "prove" that Davy Crockett didn't wear a Roman helmet at the Alamo, but that alone is not a good place to start to make a case that he "could" have worn one. :wink:

Aw, DANG.

FS, Roman helmet with coon tail.

:rotf: :rotf:

 

[tg]

". One gun does not prove the whole point but it did give a bit of perspective to the "brass only" point of view."
correct and I am aware of Walleces works and theories, as I said I have great respect for the House boys talents, but we do not have enough documentation to call any of the early guns they make HC which is fine I doubt that if asked they would make such a claim I think they build what the public wants and very well I might add. The problem with the well known builders is newcommers may hear the name dropped rather often and assume that any gun made by the builder must be replica class gun, which we all know is not the case, and again there is nothing wrong with building guns from the 1770 period with later period traits included, this has become what many want of late, they ask for a Southern Mt rifle but make it F&I period..soooo some do.

"We expect him to make exact coppies of what the old masters did befire we conceder them period correct in what they make in their chosen field ."

I have to disagree here, I have not seen an instance where anyone demanded that a gun be an exact copy of an original to be HC/PC, however if they work in the 1775-1800 period of a Penn. school, I would not expect to see a late (1815) period lock used on a gun and see it labeled as HC.This is the main bone most pick with guns that are given the HC label yet have a mix of parts and styles that just would not have ever came together in the past unless on a gun as late as the latest item on the gun.