the best place to get a traditional knife blank?

[LRB]

I challenge your nay. I said documented. Many of the items in Neumann's book are not documented, by Neumann's own admission. #4 may or may not be, and it doesn't require a blacksmith to re-purpose a broken sword, which were not all Scottish either. I am sure there were some blacksmith made belt knives, but few compared to the many hundreds of imported scalpers or butchers carried by American woodsmen and riflemen. If you believe the large stag gripped fighting knives were so prolifically widespread in use by frontiersmen, where are they?

 

[S.Kenton]

hey Wick,
How wide is your handle? Or rather your tang on your ball grip knife? It appears to taper and get a little wider toward the ball..is that correct?

 

[S.Kenton]

One more thing Wick, How long is your handle? Looks to be around 3-4 inches?

 

[Stophel]

I agree with Wick. :wink:

And it's the "COLLECTOR'S Illustrated Encyclopedia of the American Revolution".... With "collector" being the operative word. Some collectors make all kinds of claims, backed with nothing but their own ideas and the ideas of their fellow collectors. Ideas that, once in place, are nearly impossible to dislodge, no matter how much evidence there may be against them. There's a lot of money and big egos involved. I have been studying 18th century axes lately, and this is something that seems very prevalent in the collecting of axes/tomahawks. There is also an ENORMOUS amount of fraud and forgery involved. People are buying up cheap axe heads from Europe and South America and the U.S., and selling them here as "authentic" 18th century colonial American axes and "tomahawks"... and people lap it up. Many large collections (even "authoritative" published collections) are chock full of 19th-20th century ice axes, turpentine axes, lath hatchets, shingling hatchets, South American trade axes, French carpenter hatchets, Bulgarian firemens' hatchets, and who knows what all else.

I love Neumann's books, I use them all the time, but they're not necessarily authoritative (I really wish he would have given more provenance for some of the items. Just saying something like "this form is found in many Revolutionary War sites" isn't sufficient. What sites? Where?). It's also from 1975 and scholarship has revealed a LOT since then. :wink:

For things like knives or axes, and so much else, I have come to personally require real, hard evidence like verifiable archaeological finds and period illustrations and other documentation, otherwise, all you have is "this looks old, it must be from the Revolutionary War period!"

:wink:

 

[Stophel]

Oh, and the antler handled knife was found digging at the harbor of Philadelphia, I believe. It's in a sheath dated 1758, as I recall. I have only seen the one "Image Bank" photo, which shows the knife in the sheath, so I have no idea of the shape of the blade, but it doesn't seem too wide. I read somewhere that the organic material found stuck to the tang of the "Ticonderoga" knife blade was determined to be antler too, but my memory is fuzzy. There are these and other "spike tang" knife blades found archaeologically (some with the spike in the center of the blade, some at the spine). I have yet to see them with pommels/endcaps/capstans. These SEEM to be imported knife blades that the purchaser (or the retailer) finished by pressing the tang into a hole in an antler (or piece of wood?), perhaps holding it in place with cutler's cement.

 

[LRB]

hey Wick,
How wide is your handle? Or rather your tang on your ball grip knife? It appears to taper and get a little wider toward the ball..is that correct?

The grip from the front to the end of the ball is 4 3/4". It is tapered in width slightly from 3/4" at the front to 7/8" where it meets the ball, giving 3 5/8" hand room from the front of the bone to the ball. That sounds short, but due to the blade roll out forming the heel, it leaves room left over if your index finger is against the steel. The tang is about 5/32" thick at the front and tapers to 1/16" thick at the very end of the ball.

 

[Rifleman1776]

First, I did not say "all" were made from Scottish short swords. I said "often". That comment came from a Rev. war incident I read about in which the Riflemen found their issued short swords were too confining in small quarters such as English soliders cabins or tee pees.
My knife is actually composite of five references I was able to find in 1975 when I commissioned it built. One was a book from NMLRA offices and a few from other sources. It was all I had (pre-internet days) at the time. It was not until years later when I first saw the Neuman's "collectors" encyclopedia.
It always amuses me when there is a challenge to "document" comments. Then if the documentation does not agree with the challengers fixed notions of how things are to be in his way of thinking, then the is discredited. And, fwiw, antler material does not last long when left in a natural environment.
My knife below. And, I stand by it as a good representation of the Rev. Riflemans knife.

[/img]

 

[LRB]

I concur with Stophel, and would add that it is rare to see a guard on a knife of that period, other than on daggers, which seem to have been a popular choice for an exclusive fighting knife. Broken sword knives excluded. You have a very nice knife, but I would hesitate to say a "good" representation of a riflemans knife if not a dagger. I don't believe you can choose any one particular design, and call it a good representation, unless it be that of a known common, prolific, easy to obtain style most likely to be carried by the majority of hunters and woodsmen, and that would be a common butcher or scalper. At least until more is known of the subject.

 

[Artificer]

There are these and other "spike tang" knife blades found archaeologically (some with the spike in the center of the blade, some at the spine). I have yet to see them with pommels/endcaps/capstans. These SEEM to be imported knife blades that the purchaser (or the retailer) finished by pressing the tang into a hole in an antler (or piece of wood?), perhaps holding it in place with cutler's cement.

This style of knife was very common in late 17th and 18th century Scotland for common/utility knives of blade length around 3 to 4 1/2 inches and especially with the tangs up high on the spine. I used to have a couple of links from Museums in Scotland showing a couple really neat examples like this and surprisingly antler seems to have been as common as wood, if not more so. Perhaps because of the deforestation of Scotland, or maybe just the stag handled knives were better kept by their owners who were more fond of them over the years? Since the stag handles on the common/ordinary knives normally appear to be cut from straight/straighter pieces of antler, perhaps it was a way to use the antler more fully that otherwise might be thrown away? Who knows?

Such knives were not "hunting knives" nor "self defense" knives, but rather sometimes the only knife Scottish women owned and normally kept "in the folds of her skirt." This so it would always be handy when she needed it and to guard against loss. Of course a woman COULD use it for self defense, if absolutely necessary.

Since Scottish women kept these knives in the folds of their skirts, it is not only possible, but probable that some immigrant Scottish women carried them this way to the New World.

Now PLEASE I hope no one thinks I'm trying to say that ALL or MOST of these knives came to America that way, because that is not what I mean. I merely add this information to suggest how SOME of these knives wound up here.

Of course, to be a true Scottish knife from the old world with an antler handle, it would have been Red Stag/Deer antler and not White Tail Deer antler.

Gus

 

[Stophel]

Back to the scalping knife.

I have one of Wick's French type knives, and it is fantastic. :wink:

I have made a couple of scalpers for myself. The first one is the "red handled scalper" which I made from an Ontario "hop knife" (it's about 16 bucks). It's BARELY wide enough to make a relatively convincing imitation (that's the biggest problem with modern butcher type knives.. they're too narrow). It's good quality 1095 steel, but is relatively soft (I'll guess it being at rc50 at best) and probably at least as good and likely better than the typical 18th century cheap butcher knife. I made the handle out of a piece of exceptionally hard, dense wood from a luan pallet from Indonesia, and I'm gonna guess that it's mahogany (it looks like it). The hard-boiled sheath is a little lumpy, but it's ok for what it is.

The second one I made from an old Cold Steel "Carbon V" Hudson's Bay butcher knife or whatever they called it. I bought some blades years ago when they were discontinued. I wish I had a dozen of them now. A much higher quality knife blade than the other, for sure. I tapered this tang, but not a whole lot. The handle is beech. I have yet to make a sheath for it.

It would be nice if the blade was about an eighth inch wider, but it'll have to do.

 

[Rifleman1776]

I'm through debating. I know what I have learned from research.

it is rare to see a guard on a knife of that period

Personally (my opinion) I cannot comprehend anyone making a fighting knife without a guard. Chance of hand slipping down onto the blade is much greater than getting stabbed by an opponent.

 

[BillinOregon]

Stophel, you have been hiding your knife-making talents from us!
Dang it Wick, torturing us with more of your fine blades while "not currently taking orders."

 

[LRB]

I agree. Chris has made some fine looking knives there, and it is evident that HE has done some research in the right places, rather from just watching Daniel Boone re-runs. Let me add, that John Ek made a huge number of very popular fighting knives during WWII, with the vast majority NOT having guards. To demonstrate to the military commission that regulated items sold to personnel, after his knives were rejected for no guards, he left for a short time, brought one back with his hand full of bearing grease, gripped the knife and slammed it into the wood floor as hard as he could. No slippage! They immediately passed his knives, and Ek became famous for fighting knives.

 

[Stophel]

The 18th century was NOT a big time period for "fighting knives" anyway, with certain exceptions: the Italians and Spanish still liked their daggers and Navajas, and the Scots had their famous (guardless) dirks, but otherwise, for the most part, big fighting knives were definitely not in style. Knives were out, smallswords were IN. The 16th and 17th centuries were filled with big, beautiful, fighting knives. The 18th century rolls around and they virtually disappear, and don't really reappear until the Bowie knife craze of the 19th century. And that's kinda what drives the desire for the 18th century fighting knife today. They had Bowie knives in the 19th century, so they MUST have had an equivalent in the 18th. No, not really.

I believe also, that the poor, rough, frontier trash would be generally too poor to purchase a purpose-made fighting knife. A cheap butcher knife, which they would have had already (maybe), would have to do. Of course, they also would have the tomahawk. :wink: Other than these types of people (well, them and sailors...) who might possibly end up in a knife fight, most people did not live in such lawlessness, and a "fighting knife" was simply not a concern.

As far as fighting is concerned, I think there is one weapon that is greatly overlooked today... the cudgel. I can't show you one scrap of evidence for the "18th century Bowie knife", but I can show scads of documentation for cudgels, clubs, and big walking sticks used to beat each other up. :wink: Why cut somebody when you can beat them to death? It's much more satisfying.

 

[crockett]

Thanks Wick on that Ferris scalper photo with attached ruler. For those unfamiliar with this knife- it was one of the most common shipped west to the Rendezvous gatherings of the Mountain Men. The stamp of GR was Latin for King George of England but some of the mountain men thought it stood for the Green River. If a particular cutler supplied his wares to the Crown he was then entitled to use that on his stamp. This therefore would create a Crown with G on one side and R on the other and then below the cutler's name. Ferris was a major cutler for the fur trade. Theoretically the cutler could only use that stamp during the reign of the King and this is used to date knives. There was a little wiggle room, sometimes the stamp was still used after the King died. Still, if the same cutler then supplied wares to the next monarch, the stamp could be used but now with the new monarch. Thus, the most common is the G-Crown-R over Ferris but there are also V-Crown-R over Ferris (Victoria) and W-Crown-R over Ferris (William).
In any event, when rulers are used in a photo- just use a copying machine to blow up the photo until the ruler measures actual size, then print out several images- cut them out and glue on to a steel blank and grind to the image and VOILA- pretty darn near copy of the original. I got Ferric acid at radio Shack, applied beeswax on the blade- and scratched out a stamp (Maltese Cross over L) which was another early mark.

 

[crockett]

Yes, Wick is right on the Neumann books. I wasn't reading those descriptions carefully. There may be a photo with a caption that "this knife is representative of the type used.....". REPRESENTATIVE is the key. A lot of those knives are on display at Valley Forge and the curators (some) think they are originals. As I understand matters some date to around 1920 and are from southern Europe.
Getting information on originals can be very difficult.

 

[salkehatchie]

Thank you :applause: . Speaking of Dirks and German fighting knives. I just posted in the Scottish Dirk thread a link to a forum that has an outstanding collection of on-line sources and...pictures covering the mentions in your post.

And, would agree that for the vast majority of folks in the bush - for instance the Salkehatchie in Santee area of SC in 1770 for instance :thumbsup: most did not have custom blades.

 

[Artificer]

Enjoyed reading your posts above and I agree with your conclusions that most folks on the American frontier would have used trade or butcher knives in most of their daily lives and careers. After all, it also makes sense as a fighting knife of the period (usually a dagger of some kind whether single or double edged) did not make a good hunting or all purpose knife. The thinner blades of the trade knives were easier to sharpen and easier to use for skinning and butchering as well.

This does not mean that some frontiersmen did not have, procure or make or had a more substantial fighting knife made for War when such an emergency came up. However, they most likely set those knives aside after the campaign or war was over and went back to using trade knives.

Many of us who began this hobby in the Pre-Bicentennial or Bicentennial era of the 60's through the 70's had far less research material available than the plethora of information that is widely available now. Original documentation is vastly more available and excavations since those days has taught us much more than was known then.

"Sketch Book 76" (published in 1967) was widely used as source document then. Many of us who bought that book remember the section and sketches where the authors talked about a Rifleman chiseling out a large "Rifleman's Knife" from strap iron or spring steel to make a large fighting knife. Then the blade was buried in the ground with the tang exposed. A fire was built around the tang to anneal/soften the tang area so it could more easily be shaped. Then the blade and handle were ground to shape. I do not know how the authors of "Sketch Book 76" documented that section and it may have been pure speculation. The time it would have taken to make a knife that way suggests that was not a common practice at all. (A period blacksmith, gunsmith or other tradesman with a forge could have much more easily shaped a large fighting knife than doing it that way.) I believe a lot of us took that "Sketchbook 76" information too much to heart and did not think about the fact that IF a Rifleman in the Continental Army NEEDED to make or have made a large fighting knife for war, then he did not have one at the time he joined the Army.

I have a knife that was made in the late 60's/early 70's to represent what a Rifleman MAY have had made for the Revolutionary War. The blade is flat ground on both sides and wide and long enough to replicate a knife made from a cut down sword. It had a short tang that was held in place in the antler grip with pins, RATHER than a long tang that went through the grip and ended in a nut or washer or capstan of some kind. It is TOO large to use on anything for butchering other than to chop or possibly break ribs and it is not easy to sharpen for butchering. I finally decided to see how well it would work as a fighting knife/short sword and tried chopping some branches with it that should not have hurt the knife. Well, it shattered the handle and if it could not withstand that, it would not have made a good fighting knife. Some day when I get "A Round 2 It," I'm going to weld a longer tang onto the short tang and make it a through tang that would actually hold up in combat.

I believe it "a wonderment" that we have so much more information available today than we did 40 or 50 years ago, and can thus be much more HC/PC than we were able to do back then.

Gus

 

[crockett]

These are just thoughts (no documentation). I think there was a fairly wide "umbrella" and the primary consideration in choosing a knife is your persona. The thin "trade" knives- it has been my feeling that these were knives of the wilderness, imported by the fur trading companies and sold to NDN's and trappers. The "dirks" carried by trappers. I have always felt they were preferred over a big bowie type of knife because they could be used for fighting wild beasts, etc. and yet they didn't weigh very much. Then there is the double edged knife like Davy Crockett carried- a more blunt point and only a 6" blade. As I understand it, one side was kept very sharp and the other side "so-so" for rough work where a fine edge wasn't needed. A double blade but different from a "toothpick" or Dirk.
Then there is the long hunter type knives. These have impressed me as sort of the fore-runner of the Bowie. Big, single edge. I think it is in this area that a local black smith might have made the knife.
Then you get into Naval Dirks and what could probably be termed "High Quality" fighting knives that I think date back into the colonial era. Some of the roach bellies/Great Lakes areas, brass handled- seems they might fit in this category.
So- lots of variety. I think the best approach is to consider your persona and check out what those types of characters carried for a knife.

 

[Rifleman1776]

These are just thoughts (no documentation). I think there was a fairly wide "umbrella"

I was going to step out of this discussion as so many minds have been made up and set in concrete (including mine ) that further e-lip flapping would be useless.
However, what you said makes eminent sense. My studies of the Rev. Rifleman have created a picture in my mind of what/who he was when he left home on the frontier to fight for freedom. He was a young man, farm boy and hunter, who carried only what he had. His longrifle which was used for hunting, some clothes, haversack, shooting bag, blanket roll and accoutrements. Whatever knife he had was from home and probably a butcher style. As for "joining" the army, some did and some only served without benefit of enlistment. The 'de rigor' frock coat was probably something that he acquired after leaving home. And so it goes. As for my knife, was I said, it is a good representation of five we (myself and the maker) were able to research at the time (pre-internet days). It is a composite of those five, right down to the blade length of 11 5/8", and average of the five. This was done right after the NMLRA Bicentennial matches and event. Had I waited until the spring matches I'm sure I could have found more books and references from vendors at that time. However, I stand by my statement that my knife is a good representation of what a Rifleman might have carried. After all, it is a composite of five I found and none of those looked exactly like mine. Even in the oft discredited collectors encyclopedia there are shown a variety of styles. FWIW, no one has tried to take it from me and say "it ain't authentic". :wink: :surrender: :v