156OT "Little Finger" grind variations???

[Barry E Harris]

This is a sister post to my "How bad did I get hurt post". Related but different enough to warrant a new post. When I got the fleabay item (#140073206258) home and compared it to my other two 156OT's, what a surprise. My other two 156OT's have very marked hollow grinds that run right down to the final edge bevel. If you look at the 156OT on Irv's Schrade Collectors web site, my other two blades are identical. This new purchase is noticeably different in three ways. First, the blade profile is entirely different. On my other two blades and in Irv's picture, the blade edge comes back from the blade belly in a relatively straight line to form a distinct "corner" at the back end of the blade. On this new purchase the blade edge curves up substantially as you move back from the blade belly and there is not as distinct a "corner" at the back end of the blade. The second major difference is the actual grind of the blade. The hollow grind on the new purchase is not as dramatic; then the blade rebevels about a fat 1/16" from the edge on one side and about 1/8 inch on the other side (the one w/o the tang stamp). The finish is noticeably different at this point. Then there is the final edge bevel. The third major difference, and the most troubling, is that although there is lots of metal missing from the edge near the back of the blade, there is also some missing from the edge on the whole blade, although not as much up front. I traced the blade of one of my other two 156OT's on a piece of paper. I then lined up the top of the blade and the bolster of the new purchase with the traced outline and retraced. The tops match; but, on the edge, from the point to the belly there is enough metal gone that you can see plenty of daylight between the two knives; by the time you get to the back, its a fat 1/16" (maybe I should just say 3/32"). The most obvious explanation to this is that the blade has been reground. Codger pointed out that it would probably not be cost effective for the seller to clean a knife in this price range. However, there is a guy in my town in makes his living sharpening everything everything from surgical scapels to lawnmower blades. His dad has an antique clock shop and they have quite the workshop. He is a magician with a power belt. He charges by the hour with a $5.00 minimum. You would be amazed the things that get done for $5.00. The other possible explanation is that maybe there actually was a grind difference early on. One of my "Little Finger" knives is a 509SC with no scrimshaw. It could have been assembled or even ground near the factory closing. However it is identical in blade to my other 156OT and to Irv's picture. Do you guys have any info that would indicate a different original profile or grind on the 156OT's?. How do the blades on your 156OT's compare to Irv's picture: http://www.collectors-of-schrades-r.us/newOT/highres/pages/156OT.htm

 

[Barry E Harris]

Look at the clearly evident secondary grind visible on the 156OT, 1520T, both Barlow blades, and one of the two folding hunter blades, in the 1981 Scrimshaw catalog: http://www.collectors-of-schrades-r.us/scrims/pages/sc1981.htm . Also notice the very rear edge of the blade on the 156OT. Now look at the same knives in the 1983 Scrimshaw catalog: http://www.collectors-of-schrades-r.us/scrims/pages/sc1983-1.htm . There is NO secondary grind. Also, notice that the "corner" formed by the very rear of the blade edge on the 1983 156OT is a little more prominent than in 1981. Could this represent a different grind pattern that was adopted by Schrade and then abandoned or is there another explanation for the photo differences between 1981 and 1983?