Penny Knife for Patches?

[44-henry]

An axe fashioned from low carbon iron might work after a fashion, but a knife of the same material would be all but worthless. The thesis I posted really does not provide any good evidence regarding the carbon content of the material in either case. It is also possible that the knife blades were carburized which would not leave a weld joint. For that matter the axe would likely have picked up some carbon during the welding and subsequent forging operations. None of this can be known for sure without proper analysis which has been my point from the start. Just because someone is an archeologist does not make them an expert in all areas, that is where specialists in different fields are needed and that is something I am just not seeing here.

 

[Bo T]

Getting back to the original post, here is one of my penny knives. This is patterned off of ones that I have seen that I suspect might have been 18th century examples, but might have been later. This knife uses plain blister steel that I made myself. With most of these I use either 1095 or O1 (both of which are far superior), but since it was going to be my personal knife I thought why not. Truthfully it made a good blade and holds an edge very well. Also it does make a very good patch knife.

Many steps beyond a 'penny' knife. Does the tang butt up against the wood as a stop for the blade?

 

[Stophel]

The imprints of the knife blades having no bit indicates a solid iron blade? That's just ...wrong.

I do wish I could read the Feulner PDF though, it just does not work for me.

And 1686 is NOT 1720, or 1750, or 1800. I actually would not be surprised if the axe heads on this ship were all iron, with no steel bit. These things are known, particularly from such a date. I vaguely recall reading an excerpt from someone in Canada in the early 18th century requesting that they no longer be sent cheap iron axe heads for trade to the Indians, as they didn't like them without the steel insert bit. I've actually wondered if this is the reason why the typical Biscayne type axe heads of this period were shaped the way they are... thick and wedgy. I would think that would be the only way to get an iron axe head to hold up to much chopping. I suspect that at least some of them may have been all iron, but I have no proof one way or the other. None I have seen show a visible bit weld line, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not there... just that I can't see it.

 

[44-henry]

Many steps beyond a 'penny' knife. Does the tang butt up against the wood as a stop for the blade?

No it actually stops against the steel ferrule mostly, which is the way most of the examples I have seen do. You can maybe see it in these other photos.

 

[Bo T]

Thick and wedgy could also describe a bronze axe edge profile.

The imprints of the knife blades having no bit indicates a solid iron blade? That's just ...wrong.

I believe the author meant that the imprint indicated a uniform material composition. Since steel was so expensive and the axes didn't have steel bits, the conclusion I arrive at is that there is a high probability the blades were iron.

 

[Bo T]

No it actually stops against the steel ferrule mostly, which is the way most of the examples I have seen do. You can maybe see it in these other photos.

OK. I see. Did the originals mostly have a ferrule? And did the saw cut for the blade (on the originals) go the length of the handle?

 

[Stophel]

By the way, apparently some knives did remain from the La Belle shipwreck. The Bullock Museum has on display a straight knife, a couple of clasp knives (which appear to be basic friction folders), and several axe heads of the familiar "throwing tomahawk" variety (as you will see them for sale today). I'm actually kind of surprised to see this form this early, I had been wondering just when these thinner, lighter "tomahawks" really came into being.

https://www.thestoryoftexas.com/la-belle/the-exhibit/artifacts

 

[44-henry]

OK. I see. Did the originals mostly have a ferrule? And did the saw cut for the blade (on the originals) go the length of the handle?

Every example of these knives that I have seen have had ferrules on them, without this feature they would split readily at the pivot point in the handle. The style I use is open at the front as in the photograph below, some have the ferrule extending into the groove which acts like a washer between the blade and the wood handle. The latter style is superior; however, I don't feel it is authentic and is more of a modern interpretation.

In regards to the handle the blind slot on the originals goes all the way through the length of the handle, it was probably cut with the aid of a simple fixture and a hand saw, some originals I have observed have the slot considerably off center.

 

[Bo T]

Has anyone found any references on the peened (work hardened) hardness for wrought iron? I found references for work hardened standard bronze (Brinell 200 - 300) and arsenic bronze (Brinell to about 250). I also found the hardness of wrought iron for several bridges (HRB @ 40-60). But nothing on the hardness of peened edges.

 

[Gene L]

There was such a thing as the Iron Age, which lasted a pretty long time. Iron was superior to bronze, but the sword blades bent during battle and had to be straightened out, like bronze, but apparently were superior to bronze. Steel was a later discovery, but way superior.

 

[Bo T]

An axe fashioned from low carbon iron might work after a fashion, but a knife of the same material would be all but worthless. The thesis I posted really does not provide any good evidence regarding the carbon content of the material in either case. It is also possible that the knife blades were carburized which would not leave a weld joint. For that matter the axe would likely have picked up some carbon during the welding and subsequent forging operations. None of this can be known for sure without proper analysis which has been my point from the start. Just because someone is an archeologist does not make them an expert in all areas, that is where specialists in different fields are needed and that is something I am just not seeing here.

There seems to be a disconnect about what constitutes wrought iron. The modern definition is lacking when it comes to describing the wrought iron from several centuries ago. The dividing line between mild steel and wrought iron is blurry. The variation in the carbon content for wrought iron is large @ 0.08% - 0.25% by some sources. So, it seems, there are different grades of wrought iron? One paper that I just read described a single edge sword from the 15th century. It was carburized, resulting in a surface hardness of more than 300 on the Vickers scale. However, the edge was @ 220. Indicting, in my mind that sharpening the blade removed the carburization layer. It was described as being forged from a single billet of wrought iron which showed no signs of having been folded. And not exhibiting signs of having been quenched. One source describes iron age weapons as having been work hardened-probably under the hammer. I am looking, and not finding, references to peened edges on the iron age artifacts. Or the effect of peening on the hardness of wrought iron. My hypothesis is that a cheap blade up to the middle of the 19th century or later, could very easily been made from wrought iron. Forging a blade from such material would have been faster and easier than from mild steel. Additionally, 'next to useless' is a relative term. Iron awls would have been better than bone ones. Iron blades would have worked better than stone ones. So, we can say, with some certainty that cheap blades and axes, up through the middle of the 18th century, showing no signs of having a welded bit, would have been forged from a single piece of wrought iron. And such forging would not have included any special treatment such as intentional carburization (beyond that imparted by the forging itself) or quenching and tempering. Anything else would have added an unnecessary and useless expense. Unfortunately, the quandary remains, there is little solid evidence that such blades (for trade) were manufactured from steel instead of wrought iron or vice versa.

 

[44-henry]

Actually the iron blades you are describing would have been a very poor substitute to stone blades in terms of sharpness and edge retention. Obsidian knives are extremely sharp, so much so that they are still being used in surgical applications today the only real downside would have been the brittleness of the material and difficulty shaping it.

 

[44-henry]

Somewhere I remember reading a period account that stated how the natives were dissatisfied with the poor quality of casehardened knives. A carburized blade would still have been far superior to a simple low carbon blade and even that was not well received. Given the lack of evidence that you mention I am left with my own logic. To me a low carbon blade does not seem even remotely practical and I can imagine the difficulties in selling such an article to a shrewd buyer would have been considerable. Just like today I am sure there were people that attempted to do so, but I have a hard time believing it was very common.

 

[Bo T]

Somewhere I remember reading a period account that stated how the natives were dissatisfied with the poor quality of casehardened knives. A carburized blade would still have been far superior to a simple low carbon blade and even that was not well received. Given the lack of evidence that you mention I am left with my own logic. To me a low carbon blade does not seem even remotely practical and I can imagine the difficulties in selling such an article to a shrewd buyer would have been considerable. Just like today I am sure there were people that attempted to do so, but I have a hard time believing it was very common.

I have to agree with your assessment regarding 'shrewd buyer'. Depending on the time frame, Native Americans would have been naïve and trading lower quality iron goods would have been easy. As the decades passed and the knowledge of superior goods became more common it would have been more difficult to trade such goods. So during the 16th century I'd guess knives forged directly from wrought iron (for trade) would have been the norm. By the middle of the 19th century, it would have been the rare exception. However, as a child, I recall the 50 cent knife box. I innocently ask if the knives were any good. An old timer, listening in, interjected,"The only way to get an edge on those blades is to peen them." But, over time, the knives were sold. There always seems to be market for cheap goods.

 

[Smokey Plainsman]

6 pages later, with talks of everything from Bronze Age weponry to obsidian knives, but nobody can still tell me a straight answer if these types of penny knife are historically correct for my purposes...

 

[Stophel]

6 pages later, with talks of everything from Bronze Age weponry to obsidian knives, but nobody can still tell me a straight answer if these types of penny knife are historically correct for my purposes...

The answer, in my opinion, is no.

 

[Bo T]

For the specific pattern shown in your first post. I've seen little evidence indicting that it was. No.

 

[tenngun]

6 pages later, with talks of everything from Bronze Age weponry to obsidian knives, but nobody can still tell me a straight answer if these types of penny knife are historically correct for my purposes...

I don’t see much difference between it and Clark’s penny knife. You could file down the top of the blade to get in more inline with historic shape, and use it for cutting patches. Unless you can think of a reason that at a time when people cut patches with knifes at the muzzel no person no where at no time would not of used a knife imported to America by the barrel full to cut a patch.

 

[Stophel]

The question is, was that really Clark's knife? We're not that far removed from the time where EVERY flintlock rifle belonged to Daniel Boone, EVERY powder horn was carried in the Revolution, and EVERY old hatchet is a genuine Indian tomahawk.... actually, it is still just about that way today.

 

[Bo T]

I always get confused by 'Historically Correct' vs 'Period Correct'. I am convinced that the blade pattern existed during the time period but much less convinced that it existed (to any extent, if at all) in the location.