Differences in the Buck/124/USA

L

Lawrence Helm

Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
328
I mentioned elsewhere that I bought the 119, 120 and 124 sometime around 1980, used them for a while and then preferred other knives because of the sheaths. Recently I've been concentrating upon the 119 as probably the knife I'll use most often on hikes. I do check eBay for the 120 & 124 from time to time . . . just because.

And bought a 124 in the "Buck/124/USA" time frame with cocobolo handles -- or redwood but I think cocobolo. I notice that while Buck resumed making the 124 they haven't resumed the cocobolo variation -- at least I haven't seen it at my favorite store; so I either made an offer or placed a bid -- anyway I got it for a reasonable price, around $30 less than a new one with a micarta handle. The pommel isn't any more dinged up than my black 124 in the Buck/124/USA time frame but there are other differences, differences I didn't expect.

The first is the handle shape. One of the things I didn't like about my black (I don't recall whether the handle material is micarta or something else) handle is that it is overly square. The cocobola 124 has a more rounded handle and is much more comfortable in the hand. It doesn't look as though it has been modified. So perhaps my black is an earlier Buck/124/USA and the Cocobolo is later and more rounded due to complaints. I haven't bought a modern 124 & so don't know if that is a valid conjecture. I seem to recall someone else complaining about the 124's square handle but I don't recall the date of his knife.

Another difference is blade shape. My black 124 has, and I can't recall the proper term, more of an outward curve to the blade. The Cocobola is much more straight.

There is a radical difference in the edges. The black has a rounded edge, making it IMO harder to hold an edge. The Cocobola has a flatter and better (IMO) edge.

The black is also rounded where it meets the spine of the knife (can't recall the term for this either). The Cocobola has a pronounced angle at this spot.


The cocobola is a wee bit more beat up than my old black, but I like it a lot better. If I'm going to take a 124 on a hike in the future it will be the former knife and not the latter.

Lawrence
 
Helm, welcome. First, I can't make heads or tails of what your wanting. The terms... Ok. But the area, of the knife, I'm unsure.?
Are you sure the handle is cocobolo? If it has no year date and is a wood handle it could be birch or a laminate. I don't think cocobolo was in use at that time.
This model is a trailing point. These have a straight spine. On the older ones the belly is more forward. On your newer one the belly is more back. The edge grind on the older ones, Buck gave a semi hollow grind.
On the 80's model Buck gave a full hollow grind. The wood handle model may have a swedge (false edge on the spine) near the tip.
I think pictures would help as I still don't understand what your referencing. I'm giving it a stab in the dark. DM
 
Perfect timing, as mine should be here tomorrow or Monday. I am very interested in the feel of the handle, as I purchased it sight unseen.
 
David Martin said:
Helm, welcome. First, I can't make heads or tails of what your wanting. The terms... Ok. But the area, of the knife, I'm unsure.?
Are you sure the handle is cocobolo? If it has no year date and is a wood handle it could be birch or a laminate. I don't think cocobolo was in use at that time.
This model is a trailing point. These have a straight spine. On the older ones the belly is more forward. On your newer one the belly is more back. The edge grind on the older ones, Buck gave a semi hollow grind.
On the 80's model Buck gave a full hollow grind. The wood handle model may have a swedge (false edge on the spine) near the tip.
I think pictures would help as I still don't understand what your referencing. I'm giving it a stab in the dark. DM
Click to expand...

David,

I wasn't sure I could pick up the differences in photos. As to area, a tape across the blade right about the choil shows the wooden-handled knife's blade to be 1 & 4/16 inches. The Black knife at that location is 1 & 5/16 inches wide.

Yes, "belly" is the term I'd forgotten. The black-handled 124 has belly and the wooden-handled 124 has little or none.

As to whether it is cocobolo or not, I have a 119 and a 120, made in 2014 in cocobolo wood. When I compare them to the wood on the 124 the grain looks the very similar. The 124's handle is reddish but darker than the handles of the 2014-made 119 and 120. But if the 124 is not cocobolo I don't know what it is. The eBay seller didn't say.

I don't know what you mean by "trailing point."

They both have swedges, but they are slightly different, but I'm not sure that the difference is in the design or in the fact that the wooden-handled 124 was used more than the black 124 was.

Another difference I forgot to mention is that the guard on the wooden-handled 124 is slightly thicker than the guard on the black 124.

Maybe in the next day or two I can take some photos. I'll do my best to show the differences, but I'm not confident.

Lawrence
 
Lawrence Helm said:
David,
The 124's handle is reddish but darker than the handles of the 2014-made 119 and 120. But if the 124 is not cocobolo I don't know what it is. The eBay seller didn't say
Lawrence
Click to expand...

The reddish color is actually birch I believe.
 
David Martin said:
Helm, welcome. First, I can't make heads or tails of what your wanting. The terms... Ok. But the area, of the knife, I'm unsure.?
Are you sure the handle is cocobolo? If it has no year date and is a wood handle it could be birch or a laminate. I don't think cocobolo was in use at that time.
Click to expand...

All laminated wood used on Buck knives is Birch based, then and now. In "Buck Speak", Cocobola is a dye color, not a wood species. Same goes for Cherrywood, Heritage Walnut, Rosewood, Orangewood, etc. The terms Pakkawood and Fibron are obsolete trade names for resin impregnated Birch laminate, currently known as Dymondwood.
 
Last edited:
After searching many sites and found none I liked with a decent knife diagram. I drew you one and labeled it. Now we can all get on the same page. DM
 
DeSotoSky said:
All laminated wood used on Buck knives is Birch based, than and now. In "Buck Speak", Cocobola is a dye color, not a wood species. Same goes for Cherrywood, Heritage Walnut, Rosewood, Orangewood, etc. The terms Pakka wood and Fibron are obsolete trade names for resin impregnated Birch laminate, currently known as Dymondwood.
Click to expand...

If that is true then there is some real deception at work here because cocobola is a well-known wood. See the third wood down at http://www.cartercrafts.com/woodhandles.htm

If I were as crusty as I used to be when I was younger I would resent paying for a knife with cocobola handles if the handles weren't really made of cocobola. But now I'm old and mellow so no worries. :)

Lawrence
 
Several folks here like the squared handles of the early knives. Myself included. Some of these items you mention are a reflection of the trends of that era for knife making. DM
 
David Martin said:
After searching many sites and found none I liked with a decent knife diagram. I drew you one and labeled it. Now we can all get on the same page. DM
Click to expand...

After being supplied with the term "belly" it seems that the only term I still lacked was "grindline." The Cocobola 124 (or whatever) has a more pronounced angle in the grindline than the black 124 does.

But, too repeat, they both have swedges and while they may be different, the cocobola 124 has seen more use in the swedge area and so they "may" be the same and the difference I see may be that the cocobola swedge has been worn down.

The cutting edges are different. The black 124 has a rounded cutting edge while the cocobola has a flatter cutting edge.

The spine of the cocobola and black 124s are straight except for a little drop in the swedge areas -- different drops however.

The black has a bit of belly and the cocobola does not.

The finger guard of the cocobola is thicker than the finger guard of the black.

The pommel (not shown on the diagram) is a bit deeper in the cocobola.

The cocobola handle is more rounded than that of the black 124.

Lawrence
 
Lawrence Helm said:
If that is true then there is some real deception at work here because cocobola is a well-known wood. See the third wood down at http://www.cartercrafts.com/woodhandles.htm

If I were as crusty as I used to be when I was younger I would resent paying for a knife with cocobola handles if the handles weren't really made of cocobola. But now I'm old and mellow so no worries. :)

Lawrence
Click to expand...

Note that the natural wood is cocobolo. Buck always refers to theirs as cocobola dymondwood. It's spelled differently and as with rosewood I believe they always include dymondwood with the description and never rosewood by itself.
 
Lawrence Helm said:
After being supplied with the term "belly" it seems that the only term I still lacked was "grindline." The Cocobola 124 (or whatever) has a more pronounced angle in the grindline than the black 124 does.

But, too repeat, they both have swedges and while they may be different, the cocobola 124 has seen more use in the swedge area and so they "may" be the same and the difference I see may be that the cocobola swedge has been worn down.

The cutting edges are different. The black 124 has a rounded cutting edge while the cocobola has a flatter cutting edge.

The spine of the cocobola and black 124s are straight except for a little drop in the swedge areas -- different drops however.

The black has a bit of belly and the cocobola does not.

The finger guard of the cocobola is thicker than the finger guard of the black.

The pommel (not shown on the diagram) is a bit deeper in the cocobola.

The cocobola handle is more rounded than that of the black 124.

Lawrence
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, the 124 model history on the club website says 4/81 for impregnated red birch handle slabs, and Joe H provided a history that says 1982 for the Pakkawood (impregnated birch). Then the catalogs have a different tale.....
But all those sources to agree on impregnated birch as the material :)

I just had to go look on the BCCI website, due to overwhelming curiosity, and the '81 and '82 catalogs still list the handle slabs as buckarta.
However the '83 catalog lists the handle slabs as "impregnated birch", not cococola......



Perhaps much of the blade differences could be down to the amount of use, and differing sharpening techniques etc....
Then there is also that these knives were largely handcrafted in the early years, so differences from blade to blade, even in the same year might be found. Also blade grinding techniques changed over the years, hence the difference in grind lines.

If you post good photos of both knives side by side, especially close ups of the parts of the knives you are curious about, the super knowledgeable folks here would likely hook you up with a ton of info ;)
 
Last edited:
The Ricasso man, where's the Ricasso?

And the quillon, where did they put the quillon? :confused:

Just kidding,

Here is a link to some knife diagrams. Not specific to the 124, but it should still dave David some drawing time.
http://www.jayfisher.com/Knife_Anat...nife_Blade_Shape_Photographs_and_Descriptions

If you scroll down, there is a glossary of detailed knife terms to go with the diagrams.

Nice artwork David!
If there had been a line seperating the pommel from the phenolic, I was going to shout "I'll take it" and request your paypal info.

Thanks for the research DC,

Hopefully, in a few hours, I will be holding a 124, while looking at this discussion. But I may run out and carve, slice, or cut something to get that new knife smell of the thing. So I don't end up with another safe queen.
 
Last edited:
I knew there would be some nit-pickers. The choil is the Ricasso. Just a different term.
A quillon is a type of dagger. And yes I looked at that site and found several mistakes in it. So, I didn't use it. This is an example of a Trailing point. Other point shapes are different. DM
 
Last edited:
Yes, birch has been the handle term I've read. Granted they Are Meaning a laminate. Which IS dymondwood (modern term). In older writings I've seen the 'Pakka' wood term used. Let's not argue semantics.
When we read these handle material names they are indeed (though just not numerating all of it's industry names) those Desoto state. DM
 
Last edited:
DesertChris said:
Interestingly enough, the 124 model history on the club website says 4/81 for impregnated red birch handle slabs, and Joe H provided a history that says 1982 for the Pakkawood (impregnated birch). Then the catalogs have a different tale.....
But all those sources to agree on impregnated birch as the material :)

I just had to go look on the BCCI website, due to overwhelming curiosity, and the '81 and '82 catalogs still list the handle slabs as buckarta.
However the '83 catalog lists the handle slabs as "impregnated birch", not cococola......



Perhaps much of the blade differences could be down to the amount of use, and differing sharpening techniques etc....
Then there is also that these knives were largely handcrafted in the early years, so differences from blade to blade, even in the same year might be found. Also blade grinding techniques changed over the years, hence the difference in grind lines.

If you post good photos of both knives side by side, especially close ups of the parts of the knives you are curious about, the super knowledgeable folks here would likely hook you up with a ton of info ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll accept that my knife is probably impregnated birch and not cocobolo. However, Buck knives being made today seem to use cocobolo and not birch -- because they say "cocobolo." When you go to the Buck site you see Cocobolo dymondwood listed as the handle material. Dymondwood is a resin used with several different woods as a laminate. Here is a site listing woods for people who make bows: http://www.binghamprojects.com/woodsamples.php First the wood is mentioned, but further down you can see it described as being combined with dymondwood as a laminate. I take that to mean that cocobolo wood is combined with the laminate substance dymondwood to make the handles presently used by Buck and called cocobolo dymondwood. At least that is the best explanation I've found so far. :D

And yeah I'll post some photos of my knives but I doubt I can get to that today -- maybe tomorrow.

Thanks again,

Lawrence
 
Lawrence, You have a point, cocobola is a real wood, Not a laminate. Man made. But we are in doubt the year of your model 124 carried that type wood handles. Still, a good photo would help to clear this up. DM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top