110 version 3 data needed

J

junom

Joined
May 20, 2012
Messages
128
Hi,
I have two 110's I need to know about, both are version 3's the closest data I can find on them is variation 6, both have one butt pin. One has a flush brass rocker rivet that's correct on the data, but it has 2 tiny inlay rivets and two vary large flush inlay rivets, I lost a tiny rivet so I called Buck repairs and asked about the having a new inlay pin put in, at the time I thought it would be a good idea to ask about the large flush inlay rivets Repair told me that it came from Buck that way.
Another version 3 I own has two large inlay rivets and a headed brass rocker rivet, none of that is correct for a variation 6 or any other one butt rivet version 3 knives, I wonder if Joe Houser just missed it like the square spring, and at one time the 4 inlay rivet knives. I've lots of old 110's with small differences in knives that wont fit any variations, but these are major. Thanks George God bless
 
George,

Here are a few comments.

First, as ITE wrote, some pictures would help.

Second, I think you may have a misunderstanding of Joe Houser's work. Your comment of "…I wonder if Joe Houser just missed it like the square spring, and at one time the 4 inlay rivet knives." makes it sound as though Joe was like Moses coming down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments cast in stone. It would be a lot better to think of Joe's information as a starting point for collectors of early 110s, something to be added to as new information becomes available. Everyone who tries to make sense of the early 110s owes Joe a lot of thanks for putting information that he had available into a clear structure.

Third, I have questions about using inlay pins as a basis for creating a separate variation. Inlay pins don't represent structural change. I know of a 1st Version 110 that is more or less peppered with inlay pins, instead of the normal two. Does that make it a separate variation? I would prefer to think of it as just a very early experiment or a knife maker's whim.

Fourth, remember that the period from late 1964, when the first 110s were made, until 1969, more or less, represents a lot of trial and error in making a durable knife.
These were essentially handmade knives at a time when Buck was just starting to make production knives.

I'm sure everyone would like to see photos of the knives you have.
 
Hi, I know Joe is doing a better than great job, he may never find all the 110's,that were released as a run what he's already done is more than anyone could expect, I personally think he's a great man without a bad word to say about anyone. Most of the old information on Buck knives before Joe became historian was very bad, at least what I've seen.
My main concern is if there was a limited run of ver.3 single butt riveted 110's with headed rocker rivets and large inlay rivets, or if it was just something Buck tried out on a knife or two. The one I have in for repair looks like something Buck may have repaired earlier that's the one with the flush rocker rivet, they may have had trouble keeping the wood on. The ver, 3 with the headed rocker rivet and large inlay rivets looks like a good design to me, it looks like it would do a good job of keeping the inlays on, I understand what you are saying Buck was small back then and they probably didn't want to make any scrap so they sold everything, they were just knives to use at that time not to collect.
Thanks for the info and God bless
George P/S I have one other thing I was curious about I have had old Buck sheaths with the 110 on the bottom and a high belt loop with no rivets I don't know the age
 
I've seen that sheath during the 2 dot era. I've also seen the 110 stamped high on the sheath. I swapped a 110 model like you describe to a collector and he didn't like it that someone had sanded the rivets flat. I explained this was not the case but he hadn't seen one before... So, he didn't realize this could be factory. DM
 
And even the factory rare one that had no inlay rivets.

DSC00022-1.jpg
 
George,

You have got some really good people giving you ' on the money' answers. But, as mentioned the best written descriptions from you or Joe Houser do not do justice to a knife question like a photo does. I think Joe would quickly agree. If you need advice on how to take and post a photo here, please do not feel intimidated, the good people answering and many others reading your post will be eager to assist you. And your questions will be quickly answered or you may show everyone else something they have never seen before. Just as Packy frequently does.

300Bucks, Buck Forum Moderator
 
Last edited:
Here are a couple of pictures of 3-6 & 3-7 to look at , I've never seen a round rocker pin on these versions
but I would like to see one , if you need help posting a picture just email it to me I'll get it posted in a hurry for you .

driggert25@gmail.com


Here is a 3-7

And a 3-6
 
Junmo, Joe did write about the 4 handle pins in the 110 sticky above. He named them in the 5th Version, 5th variation 1974. DM ??
 
A convex head or a flat headed rocker pin, I would have understood. Even a 'round headed' rocker pin I would have known what was being identified. Thanks, for clearing this up. DM
 
Hmmm, 3rd Version...variation 6 (top).....variation 7(bottom)...and both are 1 rivet on rear bolster(and I don't make a living taking pics:o)

Version3variation6-7_zpsba7a5c6f.jpg
 
Hi, I can't figure out how to post picture, I see one like it if it's a version 3, it's the second to the last picture with a red background but the rocker rivet is headed and smaller on mine also it has what looks like a deeper than normal notch at the bottom of the run up to hold the rocker lock, but it could be a illusion, the blade sits forward in the bolster making it look longer than it is if I put it next to another forged 110 with a blade that's about 3 7/8" it looks about the same length or longer if it's measured it's only 3 3/4". The 110 with the red background has the same size inlay rivets. I decided to sell my square spring while their hot, if Buck put their experimental knives on the market there must be a lot of them, I'm older I can't remember Buck selling anything that didn't match what they had out for that year,and I sold some in 1968 I was 16 teen or 17 teen, I believe Burt 100% so they got out to the public somehow. I transferred a picture into a download but I can't copy and paste it,maybe I'll print the url in the box, I wish I was more PC literate. I think I'll try to search around and see if I can find some odd 110's and get rid of them before everyone thinks that there are a lot around, but when I look for them I never find them , if I just clean up one will show itself but who knows what one it will be, I just bought anything marked 110 I didn't care about the changes back then I sold a lot of Bucks too cheap the biggest mistake was about 7 or 6 years ago I traded a Damascus custom bark and raindrop Buckmaster for a expensive rifle, it was 1 of 5, I think it was #3 I called Buck in about 1989 and asked them about it ,they were 15 year employe service awards mine belonged to a man with a Spanish name.one was stolen from a airport. I only paid $250.00 for it and a custom 639 I think I may still have a picture of the 639 custom on file from 2 years ago . I thought I was getting a fair deal.A knife dealer named Phil Vause has it now. George God bless
 
George,

There are a bunch of ways to post a photo. BUT, I most often recommend going and joining the website PhotoBucket for FREE. You then load your photo on a spot on your computer you want to keep them, then move them to photobucket. In your PBucket library save the photo using the last option (IMG)and then post it here in the reply box. There are other ways an likely you will now hear about them. ha
You leave your photo in your photobucket account and it will stay here on BladeForum till the cows come home, I still have some from the early 90's. BladeForums has a 800 pixel limit on your largest side. For you BCCI folks, remember you can't post a photo on the Club website larger than 450 pixel limit on your largest side. George don't worry with this at first, but the rest of you might think about this, my screen cuts off a little on BF when I use the 800 pix largest side size. I have been going to 685 pix on the large side and all the photo seems to fit in nicely in my screen and the BF screen. I have not experimented but a few more pix might work well also. 300
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top