Buck 111

Status
Not open for further replies.
Esav Benyamin said:
Thanks.

Standards of evidence vary, depending on the case. Some evidence is good enough to consider a strong foundation for further searching. Dismissing it because it's not absolute evidence would cut off a lot of chances to find that absolute evidence.

As long as they are clear that they rely on documentation, that is, someone else's word, they aren't deceiving anyone. They are providing history. Like all history, it isn't always possible for the archaeologist to find the one artifact he really hopes to see.
Click to expand...

Well put Esav. Your opinion please...Do you feel a Buck project manager is to be considered as reliable documentation?
 
Of course. Especially when more than one reliable written source exists, not memory from years later, but documentation from the time. That's the kind of evidence that courts accept.
 
Of course, the court would still have to recognize the embarrassing fact that nobody can find a copy of the knife with the date mark as claimed.

That's a problem, because some of the claims are as recent as the 1990s, but still, not a single knife with these date marks can be found. Where are they?

Any judgment lacking an example of that knife would be speculative.
 
Why is this an "embarrassing" fact?

In FACT, people here are collectors, not homicide detectives. Standards of evidence vary. By what standard do you deny the validity of the documentation -- fraud, error, what? People working professionally with this product record their existence in the ordinary course of business. Case closed.
 
Why is it an embarrassing fact?

Because people have claimed that such knives were recently produced, and apparently in fairly good quantities--yet nobody can physically show an example of even one such knife.

That's fairly embarrassing, I'd say.

By what standard do you deny the validity of the documentation -- fraud, error, what?
Click to expand...

Error.....we've certainly seen a history of imperfect documentation. And this could all be fixed simply by somebody producing an example of the allegedly produced knives.

Still waiting for that happy moment.
 
No, I think you have a talent for predicting how these discussions go, Stelth.

;)
 
I don't have a horse in this race so I don't care who is right. You made your point...about 50 times just let it go. You're going to get yourself banned.
 
Gently, gently. If the argument has gone on long enough, just don't participate.
It's better to express your own opinion than to speak against someone else's.
Let me do the banning. We try to reserve that for really serious problems. :D
 
Hello Joe,
The answer posted earlier, the one from Bill Keys, is actually the correct one for your question. Bill is an engineer for Buck and has worked here for quite a few years so he knows.

In regards to the 111 Classic, the last Buck catalog that shows it was printed in 1983. From 1984 through 1990 we made over 12 thousand more 111 Classics. I remember when they were discontinued and I remembered that we kept making them for larger dealers that wanted them.
I have a theory as to why you cant find one with an 86 date code or later. The shop probably figured "why bother getting new stamps since the model is disco and we are only making this one more batch". I like this theory because the standard run for a batch of 110 sized blades back then was 6,000. Looks like they ran 2 batches after the knife was disco.

No snide or condescending remarks and no sarcasm used to create the above post. Although some might argue that this last remark was sarcastic and if they feel the urge to point that out....please do it somewhere else. :mad:
 
I didn't notice any snide attitude or sarcasm or condescension, Joe.

I was too busy concentrating on the "probably" and "theory."

Lots of theories around, but an amazing lack of any examples at all of the "theoretical" knife in question.

That's what's meaningful to me. Theories and probablies are nice, but their value is that of the paper they're printed on.
 
Joe Houser said:
No snide or condescending remarks and no sarcasm used to create the above post. Although some might argue that this last remark was sarcastic and if they feel the urge to point that out....please do it somewhere else. :mad:
Click to expand...

Joe asked nicely, I am asking officially: drop it. You are fighting the wrong battle.

The others want the kind of evidence that satisfies them, you want a different kind of evidence. Stop poking.
 
JoeBW said:
Hi Plumberdv ,

I' m wondering about the 111 with wood scales.

thanks - Joe
Click to expand...

Here's more info for you.

#2 03-12-2009, 08:08 AM
Richard Matheny
Registered User Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 396

The 111 and the 55 were introduced in 2005. The 111 was discontinued in the Fall of 2008. I don't know why it was discontinued but I would guess that they were too similar to the 110 (same frame and blade but different bolster configuration) thus adding to inventory without value add to the company. Further, getting the correct match between the bolsters and the inlays could not have been easy except by using a CNC controlled mill or LASER.
 
Thank you Esav and Joe H. for your knowledge and contributions in this discussion . Even as well as Bill Keys and Richard's writings . DM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top