Info on a granddaddy barlow needed

I was hoping someone would be able to answer some questions, maybe Joe or another Buck employee will be able to shed some light. Or maybe this was a sham and I wasted allot of money...
 
Matt,
Let me answer in the open forum to do some collector education for those just starting out.

Like I said, I don't know where it came from for certain but I believe it is some type of prototype for that knife series...Prototypes are more valuable to "collectors" vs mainline knife enthusiasts. Value is what you and other collectors think it is worth. As a collector you have a unique knife that can be displayed AS something unique, as part of a collection. Will you ever be able to sell it for more than you paid for it ? Likely some day when or if you dissolve your collection. Usually our heirs will do that for us. Just consider ITE and his dealings in the old factory area.

Sometimes real collectors buy odd stuff to make their collections stand out, this is one of those items. You just wanted it in your collection more than I did in mine.

300
 
300Bucks said:
Matt,
I believe it is some type of prototype for that knife series...Prototypes are more valuable to "collectors" vs mainline knife enthusiasts.
300
Click to expand...

Well, this being said, I sincerely hope this is a prototype. I would really like to know the origins of the blade stamp, Musket-1. If there are other knife Co. out there that used this blade stamp maybe we can find out the history and meaning...
 
Well I did a search on the Musket-1 blade stamp and it appears that this stamp was used on a Remington Barlow honoring the Musket. How this blade was used on a knife supposedly made by Camillus for Buck as an exclusive for the Smokey Mountain Knife Works is still a mystery.
 
I found a link to a BF thread that stated that all Daddy/Granddaddy Barlows were made by Camillus. This would explain the Musket-1 blade stamp on the GD Barlow made for Buck. If this was a Prototype made by Camillus for Buck as an exclusive for the SMKW, Camillus would have used on hand materials to make a prototype up for the Buck family to show off and ultimately approve for production. Wow, what a tangled web to un-weave. Here is the BF post. In the bottom of post #1, he explains that Camillus made all the knives in questions.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/421624-Barlow-Showtime-come-one-come-all!
 
Matt,
When the Camillus inventory was liquidated, post-bankruptcy, many parts were purchased and numerous "knives" were put together with the assorted left-over Camillus parts. My only source of knowledge about this comes from posts here on Bladeforums and, as I recall, a couple magazine articles. I am NOT claiming to know the details in any way. If you have a knife that is substantially different than the actual model sold by SMKW, it is possible that your example is one of the post-bankruptcy re-manufactured models. I hope this points you in a helpful direction.
You may be able to get more information from this by inquiring on Bernard Levine's excellent site on this forum. Please understand that my comment is in no way meant to be negative.
 
Camillus was much like Buck in that they often found stuff laying around and then used it for current projects.

I may have or have had a Camillus/Remington knife that's a similar type of oddity......I'll have to see if I can drag it out.

If there's any way your knife can be dated to have been made before the Camillus auction you could eliminate that possibility.
 
Last edited:
I looked it up in my notes and I had a Remington 20th Anniversary Bullet Poster knife made by Camillus that (according to the seller) had one blade that turned out to be a leftover from a knife made for Sears Roebuck according to the number stamped on the blade.

The same numbered blade was also used on a Buford Pusser knife, so it might have been a leftover from that, too.

Both of these went through SMKW.

Like I said, Camillus used to do a lot of stuff like that......using spare parts to complete orders.
 
Matt,

I think your 99% with this one in the bag. One of the hand written info sheets (from me) you may have says : Lg. Barlow, made by Camillus, 1999.
That would likely make the knife in question earlier than 99, and Camillus was bad (or good depends on how you look at it) at having extra parts left over of lots of models. Pulling together a proto that meets first the desire of SMKWs and then of BUCK would likely use up some of those parts in order to make the protos cheap and easily. I bet if you look at the Remington Musket knife it likely had GREEN jigged bone scales. I believe I have seen several Remington knives in the past with green jigged bone (In the SMKWs catalog). This detective story is no different than some we have been thru on the knives made up of after-closedown parts. Just in reverse order. For you and me maybe one more bit of info but for everyone else I say you can call it done deal. 300

Don't you wish you could magically flip photo to see the back tang stamping on the knife.
Rem-Musket-1-no-box-4-web.jpg

Buck knife sold by SMKWs
Barlow22-1.jpg

Possible PROTOTYPE in question
GDBEbay.jpg

Reverse tang of Ebay knife, blade possibily from knife in top picture. BUT, with Buck stamping and prototype etching.
GDBReverse.jpg
 
Last edited:
I say this makes it 99.999% as you say. You didn't need any expert, you put the pieces together yourself....

300Bucks
 
Thanks Craig, your in put is always helpful and most of the knowledge I possess came from you anyway...
 
This is good example how things are suppose to work, you give me credit for some of your info and I will have to do the same for people in my past. Especially, Charles Tofts the first Mr. 300 series. And others in BCCI. Everyone needs to continue to spread the word....

300/ch
 
I can only speculate on that nifty Barlow. The story of it being a prototype certainly seems plausible to my old brain. I have a lot of questions in my mind as to how the knife could have come to be. The details that make it diferent from the standard run is the engraving of the word prototype and stamp of Musket-1? A knife can be engraved at just about any time so I want to focus on the stamp. Is the blade thinner than blades from the standard run? I'm thinking they may have had a finished blade laying around, ground off the regular stamping and then stamped it BUCK, U.S.A. leaving Musket-1 on the backside since that would really thin out the blade to remove it as well.
But to re-stamp the blade, they would have to soften it up first. Wonder if the blade is soft or did they re-heat treat it after they stamped it Buck?
Like I said, I have a lot of questions. I have a good idea of how things are run around here, not so much for the Camillus plant.
I cant think of a scenario whereby the knife would have been made up of left over parts though. Why would they have left over blades that were marked for 2 diferent companies projects? Sorry I'm just typing out loud here but the more I think about it, the most plausible scenario to me is that the knife is as it was presented in the auction. A prototype.
 
Joe Houser said:
Why would they have left over blades that were marked for 2 diferent companies projects? Sorry I'm just typing out loud here but the more I think about it, the most plausible scenario to me is that the knife is as it was presented in the auction. A prototype.
Click to expand...

Two company projects, I don't quite follow. But, If Buck contacted Camillus and said they were interested in contracting the company to produce a barlow, and wanted Camillus to come up with a prototype, Camillus being frugal, they reproduced a jigged bone barlow, similar to a barlow that they created for Remington, so they just used a spare blade fron the Remington project and stamped it with the Buck logo. That all sounds possible, but that would lead us to believe they would have to re-heat the steel to stamp it. Is that possible, yes. Is it likely I don't know...
 
How about this thought. You think they might make a prototype just to see the look and feel of the knife WITHOUT worrying about the blade hardness, etc...so heck they could soften the tang, stamp it and there you go, who said it was going to do a cutting test.......I can think that. 300
 
300Bucks said:
How about this thought. You think they might make a prototype just to see the look and feel of the knife WITHOUT worrying about the blade hardness, etc...so heck they could soften the tang, stamp it and there you go, who said it was going to do a cutting test.......I can think that. 300
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me. I will measure the blade thickness when it arrives though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top