Penny Knife for Patches?

[Black Hand]

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.

The definitions I use are:
Historically-correct: An item/skill correct for some time in history (general).
Period-correct: An item/skill correct for some particular period in history (specific).
A toga is a historically-correct clothing item but is not period-correct for the Fur Trade (but would be for a Roman-era reenactor).....

 

[Bo T]

So then, I believe the penny knife originally shown is historically correct but not period correct.

 

[Black Hand]

So then, I believe the penny knife originally shown is historically correct but not period correct.

Period-correct is somewhat complicated in that a penny-knife may be PC on one part of the planet (e.g. Europe) while not being PC on another part of the planet (e.g. the Colonies) - appropriate for some while not for others.

 

[44-henry]

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 problem is that nobody in history was considerate enough to draw a picture, or describe in writing a knife like this. Doesn't mean they did not exist, but just that they were not deemed important enough to write about. Given that they are composed of wood and very thin steel parts they probably would dissintigrate in the ground which might explain why they are not found in archelogical digs. Those that have survived look pretty much like the knives produced 100 years later.

The one below might be 18th century, though my guess is mid 19th. Point is an 18th century specimen probably looked about the same.

This one was found in Europe and dates to the 13th century.

And this is s common example of z Roman era folding knife.

Compare all these to the Opinel's that are still being sold today and you can logically assume these simple folding knives have been made throughout history. I for one have no doubt knives of this pattern were used in the colonies, logic just seems to point in that direction.

 

[Black Hand]

The problem is that nobody in history was considerate enough to draw a picture, or describe in writing a knife like this. Doesn't mean they did not exist, but just that they were not deemed important enough to write about.

I don't buy this. The historic details recorded about many other items INCLUDING folding knives suggest the complete opposite. Especially since even relatively insignificant, everyday items are describe and recorded in period writings.

Given that they are composed of wood and very thin steel parts they probably would dissintigrate in the ground which might explain why they are not found in archelogical digs. Those that have survived look pretty much like the knives produced 100 years later.

Again, a very weak argument. Soil type and conditions dictate the survival of items - when we find centuries-old textiles, arguably more perishable than wood/steel knives, your assumption should be re-evaluated.

Compare all these to the Opinel's that are still being sold today and you can logically assume these simple folding knives have been made throughout history.

No one argues that folding knives have been made throughout history.

I for one have no doubt knives of this pattern were used in the colonies, logic just seems to point in that direction.

Sorry - your opinion doesn't carry much (or any) weight. Show us the evidence and we'll have something to discuss.

 

[tenngun]

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.

It was found underneath Clark’s house and contemporary with him. While it may not have belonged to Clark it belonged to some one at Clark’s time.
Unlike Boone’s gun this can be the equal to a gun used on Boone’s property during the time Boone lived.

 

[Stophel]

There are scads of remains of French friction folding knives found in archaeological sites in Canada and the Great Lakes areas. They survive. Thin blades in wood or horn handles. Some were shown earlier in this thread. There is no doubt about them, they were sold/traded in huge quantities to French settlers and Indians, and there is ample evidence to show it. They still exist. These were the cheap Canadian pocket knife, carried by every French settler and Indian that traded with them. They were not used up, nor did they all completely rust away in the ground. The same cannot be said for the popular "penny knife". We find all sorts of other knives in American colonial archaeological sites, yet, to my knowledge, nothing that resembles the "penny knife" has yet been found. There is nothing to show that it was here at the time at all. Saying that it is "similar" to this or that other type of knife means nothing. Of course, it's similar, it's a folding knife. Similarities pretty much end there, though. And considering what the knife actually is, and where it comes from makes it all the more unlikely that it would have been found in the pocket of any 18th, and probably most any 19th century American, in my opinion.

Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with someone using an Opinel, or a "penny knife" or a Granddaddy Barlow knife as a functional equivalent, since the real thing is generally unavailable. But I do think it's just wrong to say that these things are historically accurate for 18th or even 19th century America.

 

[Stophel]

"It was found underneath Clark's house"... by whom, and when? And why is that person to be believed implicitly? Some might think I am overly skeptical, but when I look back on over a century of fraud, fakes, lies, and deceptions all to make a buck, claiming this,that, or the other was once owned by some famous early American, it's hard not to be skeptical.

 

[Straekat]

Attached are two images of items recovered from the LaBelle. One of them is not a drawing of a period artefact. It's a casting made from one of the hollow concretions formed around two knives. The second image is a concretion formed around a halberd with a wooden shaft. Inside the halberd concretion, the wood was intact. The cavity formed by the two kniives was empty, and the scales left an impression. More than a few wooden items, wooden tools, and knife handles (scales) survived. The high degree of detail left in the knife mold, suggests the handles were not wood, but wrought iron.

 

[tenngun]

"It was found underneath Clark's house"... by whom, and when? And why is that person to be believed implicitly? Some might think I am overly skeptical, but when I look back on over a century of fraud, fakes, lies, and deceptions all to make a buck, claiming this,that, or the other was once owned by some famous early American, it's hard not to be skeptical.

It was at the Point Disapointment L&C museum. In absence of compelling evidence to the contrary I’m going to give the benefit of the doubt to a federal museum.
While one L&C museum I was too had an 1803 HF as a gun style, it did say on the display that an earlier style similar to the 03 was most likely used. At some point all of our search for compleat documentation breaks down.

 

[Straekat]

Indians may have known and wanted specific trade goods, but that overlooks something important. Traders were frequently licensed, or paid employees of a company holding a royal or governmental charter. The Hudson Bay Company often set specific "values", usually in terms of type and number of furs for items the traders had. Btw, the traders were usually locked into purchasing from the parent company, and "free trading" was discouraged by means of corporate competition practices against small concerns. A trader might think of buying from another source, but that came at the risk of being frozen out from every doing business with the former supplier(s).

Part of a traders inventory of "skills" was giving his potential clients, free gifts/samples to "grease the skids" before engaged actual business. One of the "gifts" was often rum or whiskey, and the result more than once, an intoxicated Amerindian not thinking clearly and finding out he "traded" his furs for a jug, then waking up the next morning with little to show for "shrewd" trading.

Amerindians became heavily dependant on trade goods, they needed and could not make themselves. The traders could and did fix prices, and offered items their clients were told to "take or leave."

Before the nay-sayers raise objections, between 1945-1990, the Soviets treated Eastern European states along the lines of mercantile colonies forcing client states to accept Russian made goods in exchange for whatever their countries could offer in exchange. Eastern Europeans knew they were being saddled with second rate goods (east German Trabants, Czech Skoda, and cheap models of Russian Volgas etc) and there was little they could do if they wanted certain items, and were forced to take it or leave it. They KNEW they wanted better and were being denied access to those goods, and decided something was better than nothing. This "story" may not be exactly the same, but the similarities are there.

Try to remember early American was a multi-national, multi-racial hodge-podge. Try to get past the Anglo-Saxon emphasis. The Swedes and Dutch were squeezed out by the French, Spanish and English. In turn the survivors engaged in different business/trade and settlement patterns in the New World, aimed at eliminating the competitors and dominating the interior of the continent, the indigenous populations, and the fur trade.

In short, knives, tools and other items made and sold by the English, French, Dutch and Spanish were not identical.

 

[Straekat]

"Logic" can cut several ways, and also wrongly. Any tendency to see things as "one or the other" can create false dichotomies. "Steel" not "iron" overlooks situations were both can be present at different places in different, or possibly the same "cultural group." Computers are logical, based on the data feed into them. If some date isn't feed in, or considered, you get a "GIGO" effect...."garbage in, garbage out."

During this discussion, I've given two sources where iron knives have been reported. Both of them contained contact information where the reports could be verified by anyone who wants to be an expert. The response was that "logic" said otherwise.

I suspect I could provide many more and still be told keep trying because the information was somehow not good enough. I propose this, let the resident expert provide examples of steel knives from archaeological contexts pre-dating 1750 -from North American contexts, that are not British. Don't use examples from Europe or elsewhere, only Spanish possessions in the Americas and French/Dutch/Swedish data in North America BEFORE 1740. Even if you can provide those examples, then disprove that both steel and iron were not being used by different Anglo-European cultural groups in North America.

As for me, I'm tired of this subject because it's becoming a classic case of beating a dead horse.

 

[Black Hand]

It was at the Point Disapointment L&C museum. In absence of compelling evidence to the contrary I’m going to give the benefit of the doubt to a federal museum.

I certainly wouldn't.
I would go as far as to say they believe they have it right, but I'd still do my own research to confirm...

 

[Smokey Plainsman]

The answer, in my opinion, is no.

I see, thank you.

So what would of been used? We know they cut at the muzzle, or at least some did, but what did they use and how was the blade toted?

 

[Black Hand]

So what would of been used? We know they cut at the muzzle, or at least some did, but what did they use and how was the blade toted?

Belt knife (carried in the belt) or one of the many types of folding knives (carried in the pocket or pouch) that were known to exist. Pre-cut patches are not out of the question. Personally, I dislike cutting at the muzzle - inefficient, messy, the patching material gets dirty and I really don't like those little threads in my mouth (All my patches are pre-lubed, so this is no longer an issue).

 

[Smokey Plainsman]

Belt knife (carried in the belt) or one of the many types of folding knives (carried in the pocket or pouch) that were known to exist. Pre-cut patches are not out of the question. Personally, I dislike cutting at the muzzle - inefficient, messy, the patching material gets dirty and I really don't like those little threads in my mouth (All my patches are pre-lubed, so this is no longer an issue).

Thank you. What were the folding knives of the period? I’d like to get one for my bag. Any sources?

 

[Black Hand]

Thank you. What were the folding knives of the period? I’d like to get one for my bag. Any sources?

I defer to other's greater experience in this area.
Wood- or horn-handled friction folders and spring-back knifes were relatively common. Perhaps you have a location that might help narrow your choices.
There are some at http://www.olddominionforge.com/knives.html that may fit the bill. Other vendors sell inexpensive copies of period folding knives (such as the Revolutionary War Soldier's knife).

 

[Smokey Plainsman]

I defer to other's greater experience in this area.
Wood- or horn-handled friction folders and spring-back knifes were relatively common. Perhaps you have a location that might help narrow your choices.
There are some at http://www.olddominionforge.com/knives.html that may fit the bill. Other vendors sell inexpensive copies of period folding knives (such as the Revolutionary War Soldier's knife).

Wow... $375 for a folder...

 

[Black Hand]

Wow... $375 for a folder...

Makes a simple trade scalper in your belt much more attractive...?

 

[Juice Jaws]

Wow... $375 for a folder...

Are you going to get one for each of your bags??