recognize this knife?

[George]

This is a sketch of an original knife from the Rev. period. What can you tell me about it?



Spence

 

[Claude Mathis]

The line on the blade leads me to believe it is not flat ground (or forged). Is a grind like that common for a wooden handled knife of the era?

 

[lonehunter]

The line on the blade leads me to believe it is not flat ground (or forged). Is a grind like that common for a wooden handled knife of the era?

I dont believe so Claude, But I am far from a expert. Maybe a saber grind as I (and could be wrong)dont think hollow grinds came until much later.
:idunno:

 

[Scott_C]

George Roger Clark's?

 

[MOwoodsman]

I asked about grinds from around the F&I war on the Frontier Folk forums earlier today. I was told flat grind or slightly convex was common. Hollow would be very uncommon but not nonexistant. Problably just a convex grind.

 

[George]

George Roger Clark's?

Yes, and on display at the Filson Club museum, Louisville, Ky., for several years. The sketch is by Dr. James A. Hanson in his book The Longhunter's Sketchbook. The knife hasn't been available to see for quite a few years, now, so I can't say about the grind. Hanson's caption says, "Back is sharpened near point. Heavy blade."

What I was asking about, though, is what type of knife this was. It's certainly very plain, is it just a cheap trade knife? Is anyone aware of a company who made knives of this type for import in the 1770-1790 period?

Spence

 

[pargent]

Is it an English import from Shefield ?

 

[LRB]

I would say uncommon, unusual, and a rarity in knives in the 18th c., but not beyond the realm of possibility. The basic grind is relatively simple, though not as much so as a full grind. Such a grind makes for a stronger blade, but sacrifices the "ease" of producing a razor sharp edge. Someone concerned more with strength in combat or hard use might choose such a grind. Some swords are similar, but often have a pronounced fuller to off set the extra weight. I would have an open mind about the possibility of 18th c., but would want to know more of its provenance.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Could simply be a sturdy butcher knife (based on the single pin in the handle). From what I've learned, apparently when folks had custom knives made in the 18th and early 19th century, they went for daggers or dirks, but plain knives were not custom made as they were available over-the-counter (so to speak) and much less expensive than having a similar design custom made.

LD

 

[LaBonte]

Here's a link to an actual photo of the knife - based on the actual image rather than the less than detailed drawing the blade looks to be most likely a local made product (by some one not a professional cutler), rather than an import. While such knives were not as common as the imports there's plenty of documentation of such type knives being made along the frontier in particular or by farmer's etc. IMO there is a difference in a "custom" knife made by a pro cutler or gun maker and a quick one off made by a local black smith (many were not professionally trained, especially along the frontier), farmer, etc.
The link also includes some notes on provenance
http://s50.photobucket.com/user/Kentucke/media/GRClarksKnifeStory.jpg.html

 

[George]

That doesn't look at all like the knife in the sketch. I saw the knife many years ago when it was on display, and it was as the sketch shows, with only one small iron pin in the plain wood handle.

Spence

 

[Claude Mathis]

That doesn't look at all like the knife in the sketch.

I'll say. :wink:

 

[Stophel]

I kind of expect that the person who drew the knife drew the grind mark on the blade simply because he expected it to be there, since that is how most knives made now are. And the grind area in the picture just runs out oddly at the edge of the blade a good bit in front of the handle with no sharpening wear. And the way it's drawn doesn't really show how it would be sharpened on the top near the tip (such things did exist at the time, however). The single pin in the handle is odd too, generally they'll have at least two.

Sketches are ok if you can't take a photo, but they're definitely not photographs. :wink: They depend entirely upon the artists' eye for detail (or lack of it).

 

[Claude Mathis]

I kind of expect that the person who drew the knife drew the grind mark on the blade simply because he expected it to be there, since that is how most knives made now are. And the grind area in the picture just runs out oddly at the edge of the blade a good bit in front of the handle with no sharpening wear. And the way it's drawn doesn't really show how it would be sharpened on the top near the tip (such things did exist at the time, however). The single pin in the handle is odd too, generally they'll have at least two.

Sketches are ok if you can't take a photo, but they're definitely not photographs. :wink: They depend entirely upon the artists' eye for detail (or lack of it).

I agree completely. Artistic license can be a frustrating element for the historian.

I can see how a very intricate scene or object could easily be portrayed inaccurately. I would like to think that something as simple as that knife would have a better chance of being drawn accurately, due to the lack of intricacy. The reputation of the artist would also come into play.

 

[Scott_C]

James Hanson is a historian as was his father. I would doubt he took any artistic license - I'd bet he drew exactly what he saw.

He's not a draftsman, but you can well expect it is what he observed.

 

[Stophel]

We don't doubt that, but people see things differently.

After thinking about it, if it does have a sharpened clip, then the grind mark on the blade would make more sense the way it's drawn (except for the rear near the handle).

There is a sketch floating around of the "Virginia moccasin" that is in some museum somewhere, and while it's a good sketch, I have questions about it that a good photograph would answer easily, but the sketch never will.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

... but people see things differently.

THAT is the truth! :grin: I'm a police detective by profession and when you have mulitiple witnesses you have some good, matching accounts of what they saw, but sometimes you have a person in the mix that you just want to ask, "Are you sure you were really there when it happened?" Professional reputation and past academic success don't necessarily equal a good observation at a specific place and time.

LD

 

[nchawkeye]

... but people see things differently.

THAT is the truth! :grin: I'm a police detective by profession and when you have mulitiple witnesses you have some good, matching accounts of what they saw, but sometimes you have a person in the mix that you just want to ask, "Are you sure you were really there when it happened?" Professional reputation and past academic success don't necessarily equal a good observation at a specific place and time.

LD

Isn't that the truth...All you have to do is listen to Al Sharpin and Jesse Jackson...When OJ got a pass they were quiet as Church mouse...Now they think our system is corrupt... :hmm:

Seems they are too prejudice to let the facts get in the way of stirring the pot... :idunno: