Inquiry on new acqusition (Photos added)

M

Mitch W.

Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
755
I came across a 314 Trapper with a 1990 date code but can't find it in any catalogs 3 years either side of 1990. Any have some info on the knife. The box it came in is incorrect. It's for a much later (and imported) knife. It also has a brass rivet.



 
Last edited:
It looks like the 314 Trapper was new in 1991. I guess it's possible that production started in 1990, hence the date code.

Does anyone know if these were made by Buck or were they still part of the Camillus contract?

 
The 314 was produced by Buck from 1990 until 1998. It was made by Buck and was not a Camillus contract knife.

Bert
 
I have in my notes the same as bert. It is possible the model did not show up in Buck's catalog until 91. All slip locks still in production (4 models) were brought in house in 1984. Though I think Camillus made some models after this. DM
 
David,

Is it correct then that Buck started manufacturing the 301 Stockman, 303 Cadet, 305 Lancer and 309 Companion in house in '84-'85 (and 312 & 314 in 1990) and that all the other models (307, 311, 313, 315, 317, 319, 321) were manufactured by Camillus until they were discontinued?
 
I would say that's correct, except I would put the 301, 303, 305 and 309 as starting Buck production in 1985, not '84. It's hard to say when Camillus actually stopped producing the other models; they may have stayed around a couple of years after production stopped until inventory was depleted.

Bert
 
The 307, 313 and 315 are still listed in the catalog as late as 1997, but everything else seemed to phase out in the early 90's.
 
I wonder why they stopped making all of these knives when their competitors still make the design. Buck did it better and stronger.
 
Well, according to 'Blades Guide To Knives' edited by Steve Shackleford pg. 510, not a exact quote. Buck began to mfg. in about 1984 the 301, 303, 305, & 309 in there plant. They replaced the long pull with a crescent nail nick... (pg. 511) In 1986 Buck began to reduce the number of 300 series models by discontinuing the 317; In 1991 discontinued the 319, in 1992 discontinued the 311 & 321, in 1998 the 307, 315 & 313 were discontinued. The 312 & 314 were introduced in 1990. The article continues 2 more paragraphs.
I know there were Camillus made knives showing up well after they had been discontinued. DM
 
I also read recently in an interview with Chuck Buck from 2011 (link posted by member MT_Pokt) that he was apparently not very fond of the Camillus made 300's:

S-R: Any leadership decisions you regret?

Buck: Back when we didn’t know how to make pocketknives, we contracted with a New York company. But their knives weren’t very good. Eventually we learned to make our own, and quit ordering from the other company.
 
Could be either or both, based on the geographical clue. I know that the early Schrade knives had issues with the hidden pivot pin.
 
Facts ain't always facts. Stuff along theses lines turn into who can pee higher on the wall. There are a couple of Camillus guys still active who will invite you out back for dustup for calling Cami knives poorly made. Chuck may have said that, but I have never read it myself or heard him say anything bad about the relationship with Camillus. Other than when Buck accidentally ordered 10,000 knives they didn't want. African missionaries benefited from those. Buck Schrades looked good and were good when used in a gentle manner. When used to push cut with a heavy hand, the pivot pin would bend letting the open blade flop around. With Bucks forever warranty the only way they could be repaired was to completely take apart the knife. I know this was not a good discussion subject in the repair department. After a short time the contract was cancelled as soon as legally possible and then switched to Camillus. Would it make sense after going thru the earlier trouble for Buck to contract for a knife that was poorly made ? Buck continued to renew contracts with Camillus, over and over for a number of years as is shown above; that doesn't back up the 'poorly made' theory.

Dating 300s when they were both contracted and made in-house is not a exact science. It depends on dates contracts ended, model designs changed and calendar date carry-over of last years parts. 300 changes in the late 80's and the 90's would occur at different times to the different Buck made models To make a knife special because you found it in a 1984 dated box with a 1986 dated blade is stretching what you would call 'special'. Lots of materials crossed the calendar date from previous years and received a new year sticker on the box. Parts were assembled into knives as long as they had both parts and the production department kept that model going on the factory floor. After the quit order came, parts were gathered up and stored in the repair department to do warranty work. Buck moved factories once in CA and then to Idaho. Old computer records from the CA era became unreadable when the machines that used them were trashed in the move to Idaho. A couple of people in the know really benefited from 'dumpster diving' at moving times.

Two blade large trappers and many other models were made by Camillus for a dozen other companies. One key is looking at the bolster, other Camillus made knives had this same design. The angled bolster on other Buck contract models often made them unique. You could find a rare mess-up and you would see another contractor with a Buck stamped blade and Vise-s-versa. But not many. Catalogs are not the Holy Grail of dating 300s either, they can show early starts and late finishes. Before he died, a Camillus employee held the factory production order cards, those were the true measure. In the Camillus forum he aided in many Buck research requests. Sadly, the cards have now disappeared. We have "good enough" data using all the sources we have available but I gave up dealing with splitting frog hairs several years ago. 300



Looks to me Buck was ground off and Camillus ink stamped


 
Last edited:
300,

I know what you mean about catalogs not being the knife dating reference book we would like them to be. I actually work in the retail catalog industry and many times we use the same photograph from one season to another and the manufacturer may have changed the item without us knowing. There may also be such slight changes to a product that it is not worth the time and money to re-photograph it. What we see in the printed catalog is just a rough guide for sure.

Another example of the Buck catalogs not being the "Holy Grail of dating" as you say, is the yellow Delrin handled 300's. I have never seen them in any dealer catalog, yet they do exist.

And I happen to like the Camillus 300's and early Buck 300's because of the brass liners. It's just my opinion that true traditional slip-joints should have brass liners (although some of the earliest slip joints had steel liners and bolsters).

Best,
Matthew
 
Matthew, You never saw them because they were never there.

Buck was friendly with Smokey Mountain Knife Works, in the 90's and even early 2000's, several models were exclusively and directly contracted between SMKWs and Camillus with license to allow BUCK stamping on tangs via Buck. These models were never date or model stamped, EXCEPT for your Model 329 smooth yellow two blade trapper. All they show on the tang is BUCK, (blank space), U.S.A.. From my memory, this includes a couple of 'California Toothpicks', David Martins large folder models, two Congress models and maybe one or two others.
These were never in a Buck catalog and were sold exclusively by SMKWs. About this same time other SMKWs specials were Camillus made but marked with a model number. They were Buck 300s with special blade printing and special named. The 317 came in about three versions and I have a 307 with all three blades inked. So, at the end of the Camillus/Buck contract you will see knives with no model numbers and some with special marked blades never sold from the Buck factory. Makes it sort of confusing ......300





Oh, and large and small barlows
 
Last edited:
Lets just take a deep breath and lighten up. No body's going out back for a dusting off. The Camillus made contract knives are good knives. I've carried mine for over a year and put it through some steps with NO love taps. I know Chuck liked the company or he wouldn't have continued to keep ordering from them all the way from the 70's to 2000. Which was shortly before they closed their doors. They were the oldest knife company, in business for over 100 years. Nobody here knows what Chuck meant when he said that. This topic is about Mitch's 314 Trapper and we have given him some well researched, accurate information on it. Thank you for these handsome example photos. DM
 
Perhaps he was speaking of Schrade? It seems they were never up to Buck specs. I have not owned one, but have owned the Camillus made knives and they were good quality. I doubt he meant he regretted the contract with Camillus for quality reasons.
 
The issue with the Schrades (and Ulsters) in the 70s time frame (give or take) was the Swinden Key construction. The purpose of the design was less expensive and more automated production but the result was a weak joint that was essentially unfixable. As much as I like Schrade, IMO it was a regrettable move towards disposable goods. Interestingly, the same thing might be said about one of Buck's recent knives introduced this year which uses a cartridge type construction. History repeating?

On the positive side, Schrade did a very good job heat treating their 1095. It's an utter joy to use and plenty of people seek them out despite the Swinden Key for that reason.

When I read that interview with Chuck Buck, I assumed he was talking about Schrade due to the Swinden Key issue.

When I think of Buck, I think of hunting knives: fixed blades and lockbacks. It's not clear to me that their slip joint pocket knives have ever been in the center of their wheelhouse. More broadly, I think the center of gravity of US made slip joint pocket knives was in the northeast, largely associated with British and German immagrants in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

When I think if the makers associated with the mid-west and west - Scagle, Marbles, Western, Buck - I think of larger hunting knives, often hollow ground.

I find the Buck made slip joints to be interesting. They combine traditional patterns with the hunters hollow grind and that's somewhat uncommon in traditional slip joints.

I have a big Camillus made 307 that has design elements I associate with more traditional slip joints; namely the long pull and flat ground blades. It's build quality is as good as any Buck-made Buck I've ever handled. But the Buck-made Bucks and Camillus-made Bucks are different animals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top