Are modern slipjoints too small?

eisman

eisman

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
6,911
A recent arrival of a Maher & Grosh (one of the "replica" from a couple years back) and a original Flylock (pre-1928) sitting together on my desk got me to wondering. Are the knives we see as "traditional" actually smaller than the commonly used pocket knives of 100-150 years ago? Both of those examples dwarf a Queen Stockman pattern and everything else within arms reach, and by extension most of what I have stashed elsewhere.

4vabEqc.jpg


Is the reason it's so hard to come by the larger folders because that's what was primarily carried and used? Are the guys running around with the "large" modern patterns really using blades closer to what our forefathers used for their daily chores? (Blasphemy, I know...) Would Hemingway prefer that 4" bladed Spyderco to Case's Peanut? Would General Sherman carry Pro-Tech?

qoFNQnC.jpg


Or in another direction; does the common convention for carrying a knife trend to smaller blades as society becomes less rural? Certainly the daily use and fashion have influenced knife styles; that's a given. But is the current traditional really representative of what you'd find in the pocket of "Joe Average" circa 1870?
 
As far as I can tell the modern slip joint traditional knives are sized properly for their patterns. I think we see so many knives in the 3" to 3-3/4" size because over the centuries of industrial knife production that size has been found to be the sweet spot for comfortable carry and productive use. As for seeing fewer large knives on the antique knife market, there fewer produced. Look at the production numbers of the GEC #98 pattern compared to the #15 or similar size patterns. Those numbers are not skewed by urbanization, or an over gentrification of society, but rather a balance of comforatable carry and usefulness. I my self happen to enjoy a slightly larger knife, the #53/54 patterns are among my favorite, but at some point a slip joint becomes to big for EDC, and if it is a knife for a sole purpose, such as hunting, one may decide to purchase a slimmer, less complex fixed blade.
 
eisman, I think your right on the first two of the questions. But the time line is a close one.

For the 150 year era, just look at the knives that were being shipped west on the steamboat Arabia when it sank. The predominate knife was a medium/semi large single blade sheep foot pattern with a few 'smaller knives in the mix. Up to about 100 years ago I think this was the normal size of a pocket knife.

Post civil war, the pocket knife sizes seemed to decrease in size, with the Barlow being more the norm and the cattle knife that morphed into the premium stockman pattern. The size from 3 1/2 to 4 inches closed seems to be popular.

After 1900, the sizes again seemed to decrease a bit, with small 3 to 3 1/2 inches norm, with some smaller ones making appearances. I think that with the increased urbanization of American in the early 20th century, the need for large knives in everyday life seemed to shrink a bit, with the exception of the narrow focus knives like for hunting, and fish and game use. Up to the pre WW2 era, the regular pocket knife again seemed like the regular size Barlow knife size.

Post WW2 was the great migration from rural life to way increased urban with young men by the millions doing home and not wanting to go back to the farm and plowing the back 40 for dear old dad. They came home with new skills in radio and communications, electrical, welding, mechanics, flying, all kinds of new skills for a increased technical age. I know from my own experience of growing up in the post war years, all the men carried a pocket knife, but most often it was a small one or two blade almost keychain size knife. What they called a 'pen knife'. With a few exceptions the old issue knife they had, like the TL-29's and M-I-L- scout knives, most residents of the new invention of suburbia, didn't need much knife in the new jobs in the fast growing cities. By the 1980's, it was common for a lot of people to not even carry any knife at all. Old line companies that had been around for a century were folding up shop. Belly up. Kaput.

I think the size of the modern traditional would fit right in back in our grandfathers day, depending on what our granddaddy did for a living. On if he lived in the city or country. My dad lived his whole life in and around Washington D.C. and carried a little Case peanut, yet his brother Mike lived down on the Eastern shore of Maryland as a working waterman, harvesting crabs in summer and oysters in the winter. He carried a worn old 4 inch closed Camillus stockman that was issued to him in the U.S. Navy in WW2. Two bothers with two very different life styles and two very different knives.

In the end, it all comes down to who you are, where you are, and what you do.
 
Last edited:
I have looked at a lot of antique slipjoints, and the vast majority fit in the 3-4.25" range. Some are larger than that and some are smaller, but most were a nice pocketable size. 3 5/8" was very common.
 
eisman said:
A recent arrival of a Maher & Grosh (one of the "replica" from a couple years back) and a original Flylock (pre-1928) sitting together on my desk got me to wondering. Are the knives we see as "traditional" actually smaller than the commonly used pocket knives of 100-150 years ago? Both of those examples dwarf a Queen Stockman pattern and everything else within arms reach, and by extension most of what I have stashed elsewhere.

4vabEqc.jpg


Is the reason it's so hard to come by the larger folders because that's what was primarily carried and used? Are the guys running around with the "large" modern patterns really using blades closer to what our forefathers used for their daily chores? (Blasphemy, I know...) Would Hemingway prefer that 4" bladed Spyderco to Case's Peanut? Would General Sherman carry Pro-Tech?

qoFNQnC.jpg


Or in another direction; does the common convention for carrying a knife trend to smaller blades as society becomes less rural? Certainly the daily use and fashion have influenced knife styles; that's a given. But is the current traditional really representative of what you'd find in the pocket of "Joe Average" circa 1870?
Click to expand...
Great idea for a thread. Looking forward to seeing everyone's views and thoughts.:thumbsup:.
 
I think that 150 years ago a knife was a very real survival tool, and had to be relied upon for a much greater variety of tasks. It seems the idea was to get a knife large enough for any task and make do with the precision jobs if the knife was too large. Now we worry about whether a knife shows too much bulge in the pocket of our dress slacks, and take the smallest knife that will work OK and make do on the larger tasks, taking more cuts and more time to accomplish them.
 
Are there local laws regarding blades larger than 3-4 inches? Maybe that is why they are sized as they are? Most Swiss Army knives are in that blade range.
 
I think many carried a larger fixed blade on their belt and had a small slip joint in a pocket. I know several of the men I grew up around did that and is probably why I carry a fixed blade anytime it's possible but I always have a folder in my pocket.

I think you may be right that as you get away from more rural areas you may see smaller knives carried. Partly because they may not need a larger knife ... and partially because of restrictions on carry size.
 
I do think that traditional knives have shrunk a bit from the 1800's. America was mostly rural then and folks needed a larger knife for many of the tasks they routinely did. That said, I think there has always been a range of sizes. Nothing has changed in terms of practical, but the jobs often done are often require less blade.

What did Horace Kephart carry in the late 1800's until his death.... a stockman or jack knife and a modest sized fixed blade. What did Teddy Roosevelt carry in the outdoors? Different from when he was in the city????
 
Last edited:
I suppose that back in the days when knives very likely were used harder than they are now , it probably was better to have a knife that was bigger than really needed than to have a knife that was too small for the job . I do not have a lot of knives made prior to 1900 , but the 2 that I do have are both over 4" closed . But the original Russell Barlows were way less than 4" . I prefer a knife larger than 3 & 3/4 inch . Most that are for sale now are under that .

Harry
 
Back then as now, knives came in different sizes.
3 to 3 5/8 inch were common. Peanut size fancy multi-blade "Gentleman's" (also multi blade "Lady's" and "oyster") knives were also common
Check out the sticky with all the catalog pages from days of old.
https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/vintage-knife-catalogs-ads-images-only.755317/

Most of the folding knives are under 4 inches, from what I remember.
I think the "sportsman's" knives were generally over 4 inches closed.

My guess is most men carried a sub 4 inch closed knife as their every day cutting tool.
For example: Look how popular the standard 2 blade 3 1/8 to 3 1/2 inch closed Barlow was in the 19th and 20th century. :)

They may have carried a larger knife, like a moose, trapper, 2 blade slipjoint folding hunter, 5 inch closed "Daddy Barlow", "Coke Bottle"/"Coffin", or "toothpick" pattern, or some other over 4 inch closed pattern, when hunting/trapping/fishing, or camping, of course.

EDIT:
A lot of adults carried the smaller, 3.5 inch give or take, depending on the pattern, closed inexpensive clam handle "boy's knife" since they had the same high quality blades as the more expensive knives from the same manufacturer with real bolsters, and bone, stag, horn, pearl, ivory, or wood covers, just in a less expensive handle.
 
Last edited:
Knife sizes haven't really changed much since the end of the 19th century. In fact, many of the same patterns are still being made 100+ years later. Knives of all sizes were being made then the same as now, but in much greater volume. Pocket knives were made and sold by the millions in the early 20th century. Remington alone it is said could produce 10,000 a day in more than 700 different patterns....many of those were the same 3 - 4 inch knives you see being sold by Case and other makers today. I think you'll find that the number of smaller folder patterns produced greatly outnumbers the larger folding hunter sized patterns. Thats probably why more smaller knives have survived than larger knives.
 
Time is a funny thing. Many of the older knives may be larger than average; but, is this because they were popular, or were they simply used less and therefore survived to over represent their popularity?

A couple of hundred years from now collectors may get the impression that we mostly carried large choppers around. Those big safe queens would still be around while most smaller knives would have long been used away.

n2s
 
I think its important to recognise that many small everyday tasks ‘back in the day’ involved cutting and manufacturing processes that we don’t have to do these days.

Things like smoking, sharpening a pencil or pen, lighting a fire, opening or closing a package, slicing bread.

These tasks have changed considerably with modern plastics, modern conveniences like cable ties, and the increased use of disposable items.
 
The Folding Hunter (Lock-Back) basically pushed aside the large slipjoint pocketknife beginning in the 1960's. Buck's 110 was so popular that all the other major USA producers offered a copy, as did the Japanese and Pakistani makers. If you add them into the mix I bet not much has really changed. Buck has built and sold millions of their lock-backs in the last 55+ years - still do today. OH
Buck-110-Two-Line.jpg
 
not2sharp said:
Time is a funny thing. Many of the older knives may be larger than average; but, is this because they were popular, or were they simply used less and therefore survived to over represent their popularity?

A couple of hundred years from now collectors may get the impression that we mostly carried large choppers around. Those big safe queens would still be around while most smaller knives would have long been used away.

n2s
Click to expand...

This aspect is far too important to take lightly. Its a very very excellent point that has truth to it. I know from my own father, that his preference for a very small peanut was over riding of the gift knives he received over the years. People would think, "Hey, Lee likes pocket knives, lets give him a new one for his birthday." Every single time, he'd make the usual thank you lines, put it in his pocket and vow to use it well. Then after, that day, he'd put it in his sock drawer and never carry it again.

When he passed away, there were a half a dozen new pocket knives of larger size than his little Case peanut, that had never even opened the mail. But his peanut was worn down to a shadow of itself. Someone who didn't know him may have looked at all those unused knives and thought he loved the bigger pocket knives since he had so many spares.

They'd be wrong.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top