Case handle thickness - differences?

[Humppa]

Hi guys!

I digged out an my very first traditional folding knife. It´s a Case Mini Trapper in Amber Bone with 420HC-steel-blades.

Today I carried it next to my favorite EDC, the Case Medium Stockman Chestnut Bone CV. During my break for lunch I took a little look at both knives. I realized, that the handle of the Mini Trapper is more thicker. Means, there is more bone on it.

Here you see the knives closed and opened:

Here is a pic from above with opened blades:

I don´t know if it´s so good to see on that pic, but the Mini Trapper handle is half more thicker than the Stockman handle.

Is that normal? Is it a production tolerance? Is that typical for the Amber Bone collection or just typical for the stockman pattern adding more thinner bone handles on the knife?

It would be interesting to know, because I´m thinking about buying a second Case Medium Stockman, in case loosing the beloved Chestnut Bone one. The thicker handle fits a little bit better in hand than the thinner ones.

Kind regards
Andi

 

[black mamba]

Do you know when the two knives were made? In different eras they tended to have more rounded or less rounded handle slabs.

I, too, prefer the more rounded shape of the mini-trapper.

 

[Obsessed with Edges]

There's a lot of variation in slab thickness on most traditional knives. Even among different examples of the very same pattern. High-volume manufacturers especially, will show it. The natural handle materials (bone, stag, wood, etc.) will vary greatly in quality and character, so they all end up looking different after cutting, jigging, grinding, sanding, etc. I think the bolsters are 'hafted' to be flush with whatever scales are on a particular knife, so the thickness of them will vary too.

I think these differences are part of the appeal of traditional (i.e., hand-made) knives. They could all be produced to exactly the same size specs, but the whole process would have to be done by machines, most likely. To me, that would diminish the attractiveness of them.

 

[Obsessed with Edges]

Regarding differences in thickness of the pictured knives in the OP, it looks like the secondary blades (spey/pen, sheepsfoot) on the stockman are quite a bit thinner, which would also make the spring thinner on that side. The trapper has two full-thickness blades, and correspondlingly thick springs. That would account for some of the difference in handle thickness, in comparing those two knives.

 

[Humppa]

Hi guys!

Thank you for the replies.

Well, both knives are of 2010. (I´m not addicted to the traditional-knife-drug, and old traditionals are quietly hard available here in Germany)

David, what you say is logical. The stockman blades are a little bit thinner (at all), than the Mini Trapper blades. Only the mainblades (clip blades) have the same thickness. The spey on the Mini Trapper is thicker than the pen and the sheepfoot blade of the stockman. The Stockman has no spey blade, but a pen blade instead. You also wrote about the natural componente in traditionals; that is what it makes interessting. Every knife is different. Using natural materials will cause differences. Wooden scales or jigged bone and stag are a quiet good example for that.

I didn´t want to grumble about the two knives, nor that any production failures happened. I like them both. Perhaps you guys have also some amber bone Cases at home which can be compared with a Chestnut bone Case, to see if that is standard. (I mean in relationship about the bonehandle thickness)

Kind regards
Andi