Has this tang stamp been discussed here before?

Plumberdv

Plumberdv

Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
8,160
My fading memory seems to recall this stamp or something similar was discussed here in the not too distant past, but I can't locate the thread.

Any input on this would be appreciated. It should be here in a few days and I can take some better photos.

3dot1987112.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yes, Plum, we hah a discussion about those stamps a short time ago. The reason for these date marks: Buck simply overstamped left over three dotter blades. That's all. Have fun with that Paul Bos heat treated 440C bladef knife. ;)
Haebbie
 
I recall discussion that some of the 112 build outs from last fall had the date code overstamped like that. Look for some threads from about November or December.
 
Haebbie said:
Yes, Plum, we hah a discussion about those stamps a short time ago. The reason for these date marks: Buck simply overstamped left over three dotter blades. That's all. Have fun with that Paul Bos heat treated 440C bladef knife. ;)
Haebbie
Click to expand...

Wouldn't there be only one dot on the left side if it was a three dot blade??? I've never seen a three dot with two dots on the left, only on the right side of the 112.
 
Thanks! I knew I'd seen that somewhere before. Nothing I've seen, even in the Joe's article in the newsletter explains the "why", but overstamped 4 dots seems reasonable.
 
Yes, I have several of these.

No, they are NOT Rockwell tests, those are done farther down where they will not show.

I have a problem with the "Overstamped" theory because the spacings of the dots don't seem to agree with it. Spacings are not right for either the Three-Dot or Four-Dot.

Also, if it were an overstamped Four-Dot......I'm sure we would sometimes see a part of that third dot that is supposedly stamped over. I never have.

I don't think anybody knows the answer.

Like Iris Dement.......I'm gonna let the mystery be.

:)
 
I picked one up a while back. I asked Joe about it and he said "all we have are theories" and "they seem to be rare".

112_1987_1.jpg

112_1987_2.jpg
 
No one knows for certain the meaning of this stamp. They are rare. Discussed in the Dec. 2005 newsletter. I lean toward the 4 dot over stamp. In Casey's photo above note the 'New' on his box. I have in my collection a 'New' in the box 4 dot with that same box and lettering. So, the box is of that time frame for it to happen. Also, notice his is radiused and we can pin that down when it occured. So, the 'New' could be refering to this not the blade steel. A good find. DM
 
the spacing looks wrong for an "over stamp"...the point of the > is too close to the dot...
 
Sitflyer is correct.

If that were an overstamp of a four dot stamp, there's plenty of room there so you would see that third dot by the > part.

You do not see it.

It's not a "4 dot over stamp."

These stamps seem to be separate and individual stamps......but why they were created or what they mean has apparently been forgotten and lost.
 
But Haeb.......doesn't it look like the third dot is too far out to be a Three Dot that's had a > added?

That's how it looks to my eye.
 
Well, BG, three dots are three dots not more, not less. No matter how large any distances are or if there were some wrong turned V have been added. Or not?? ;) ;) :)

Haebbie ((smile))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top