Is "Scales" a Misnomer?

[Jack Black]

Calm that Platt fellow down.

Sorry Bart, I'm trying to, but he might be turning in his grave!

 

[supratentorial]

Barbleby, If it was assumed, it would probably be right much more often than wrong--haha!

Jack, Might be horrifying but I think there's some truth to it.

For example... In contrast to trying to adhere to old terminology for the parts of a knife, GEC has been very inventive with pattern names. There have been at least a few occasions on the forum when GEC's names have been used to describe much older knives. One example is "French Kate". And there is some confusion of patterns like stock knife and cattle knife both by GEC and forum discussions.

What words will be used to describe these knife parts and patterns 100 years from now?!

 

[supratentorial]

Confusing terms from 100 years ago...

What is this pattern? Stock knife? Cattle Knife? Sowbelly?

1910

1910

1921

 

[Bartleby]

Confusing terms from 100 years ago...

Looks like time to start a new thread....

 

[Jack Black]

GEC favors a particular use and since the forum favors GEC, it may make sense to favor their language as well.

Jack, Might be horrifying but I think there's some truth to it.

For example... In contrast to trying to adhere to old terminology for the parts of a knife, GEC has been very inventive with pattern names. There have been at least a few occasions on the forum when GEC's names have been used to describe much older knives. One example is "French Kate". And there is some confusion of patterns like stock knife and cattle knife both by GEC and forum discussions.

What words will be used to describe these knife parts and patterns 100 years from now?!

This a very different discussion Jake, while many forum members like GEC knives, I'd be surprised if many posters thought they had the right to control, or even influence, the terminology used on this forum. Yes, they have come up with some good names for some of their knives (and caused confusion with a few too), so what? They're clearly pretty good at marketing themselves, nothing wrong with that, but they're hardly the first company to come up with names for their knives are they? However, we were talking about knife terminology, not pattern names, and those are two quite different discussions, and not to be conflated in the same sentence ie "In contrast to trying to adhere to old terminology for the parts of a knife, GEC has been very inventive with pattern names. " Some knife parts have had the same name for hundreds of years, the names have stayed the same because there's been no real need to change them, and most of the parts themselves haven't changed a great deal. So if GEC decides to start calling a blade a cucumber next week, I think I'm going to keep on calling it a blade. Likewise, if they tell me that a knife is meant to be sold blunt, or with blades that won't open, I'll question that too. That's another discussion though isn't it? The OP asked if it was a misnomer for him to use the term 'scale' rather than 'cover'. I say he can call it a 'scale', a 'cover', or a 'handle', and he won't be wrong, and it has very little, if anything, to do with GEC

 

[Peregrin]

I personally don't think that favoring GEC's terminology is necessarily appropriate. There are quite a few members who have little to no interest in GEC.

Language changes, as we all know.

Call them covers, handles, scales, whatever you like. We'll figure it out.

It was interesting reading all the well researched posts.

 

[supratentorial]

This topic is originally about one knife part. And we see different names used to describe that part 100 years ago. The original word may or may not be common now. It may or not have been common 100 years ago. 200 years ago it may have been called something else. Common use changes... for better or worse. That was my point. Pattern names are different than parts names-- I agree. It was not a perfect analogy. But it is an example of changing language. GEC doesn't decide common use. They influence with the names that they choose. But we decide what words to use. At some point, enough people used the word "sowbelly" that it became the norm. Common use shaped the definition. If GEC calls the "blade" a cucumber, likely some folks would start calling blades cucumber. If enough people call it a cucumber and other manufacturers call it cucumber, it may become the new norm. After 100 years most folks may not even know the word blade. It's a silly example, of course.

 

[Bartleby]

Glad that's all settled then.

 

[wlfryjr]

For what it is worth,the only elaboration I found in this 1885 reprint of the 1st catalog issued by George Wostenholm, was in these two pages. Jack mentioned before that early catalogs or listings did not elaborate in their descriptions. Agents representing the companies carried an inventory,which as quoted from this catalog" it is by their use only that articles such as ours can be rightly appreciated "

It seems there was a reluctance from this old company to adopt this new form of "advert"( I don't know if I used that term correctly,I just heard it here in this thread).

I can't believe I got up at 5:00am to finish reading this thread. Bravo all contributors,especially Jake and Jack.

 

[Dadpool]

Call them covers, handles, scales, whatever you like. We'll figure it out.

It was interesting reading all the well researched posts.

Yes, interesting indeed!

My habit has been to use "covers" only for traditional knives and "scales" for modern knives, and I'm not sure why or where I picked up that usage. This thread was a fascinating read.

 

[supratentorial]

For what it is worth,the only elaboration I found in this 1885 reprint of the 1st catalog issued by George Wostenholm, was in these two pages. Jack mentioned before that early catalogs or listings did not elaborate in their descriptions. Agents representing the companies carried an inventory,which as quoted from this catalog" it is by their use only that articles such as ours can be rightly appreciated "

It seems there was a reluctance from this old company to adopt this new form of "advert"( I don't know if I used that term correctly,I just heard it here in this thread).

I can't believe I got up at 5:00am to finish reading this thread. Bravo all contributors,especially Jake and Jack.

View attachment 737287 View attachment 737288

Nice scans, Lyle. Thank you for sharing them. Eric makes a distinction between the terms used in modern factories for a fixed blade and pocket knife. In the case of a fixed blade, there are no liners. Although they used cover for pocket knives, scales was used for fixed blades with material bound directly.

I don't know razors but the material also was also typically bound directly. The modern description by Dovo in advertising seems to be "handle". I took a look at the 1890 Maher & Grosh catalog and there's a lot of description about the blades and very little about the handles. I did see the word "handle" but that one instance was the only description I found.

Yes, interesting indeed!

My habit has been to use "covers" only for traditional knives and "scales" for modern knives, and I'm not sure why or where I picked up that usage. This thread was a fascinating read.

There seems to be a split between traditional and modern knife terms in present day ad copy. "Scales" seems to be popular with modern knives. Spyderco uses "Scales". Case and GEC use "covers" and, according to Eric, Canal Street and Schrade used "covers" as well. I don't know about Queen. As an exception, Victorinox uses "scales" at least recently.

 

[Sabercat]

First of all, this has been a very enlightening thread. I can't believe how much info has been shared here in such short time. You guys are amazing!

I mostly used "scales" when describing the cover material. But I started off more interested in modern knives before graduating into traditionals - so I attribute my usage to that.

I think perhaps it could be that so many moderns do not have dedicated liners. Therefore, without the need to differentiate - "scales" just became the go to term, regardless of whether it is proper, accepted, or incorrect.

Just my thoughts though. Either way, I'm good with any (especially now with all of the examples), and feel specific terms may only be mandatory when described in relation to other parts.

 

[supratentorial]

First of all, this has been a very enlightening thread. I can't believe how much info has been shared here in such short time. You guys are amazing!

I mostly used "scales" when describing the cover material. But I started off more interested in modern knives before graduating into traditionals - so I attribute my usage to that.

I think perhaps it could be that so many moderns do not have dedicated liners. Therefore, without the need to differentiate - "scales" just became the go to term, regardless of whether it is proper, accepted, or incorrect.

Just my thoughts though. Either way, I'm good with any (especially now with all of the examples), and feel specific terms may only be mandatory when described in relation to other parts.

It sounds like a likely explanation to me.

 

[Jack Black]

This topic is originally about one knife part. And we see different names used to describe that part 100 years ago.

Are we seeing the use of 'covers' 100 years ago?

The original word may or may not be common now.

Before I discovered this subforum, I'd already spent a few years posting in the rest of the forum, in General and elsewhere, and in the rest of the forum, they're known as 'scales', so pretty common usage I think. Of course there are a lot of other knife forums too, and there's real life, and the rest of the world

It may or not have been common 100 years ago. 200 years ago it may have been called something else.

The original word was common 100 years ago, and it was common 200 years ago too, and possibly even further back than that

If GEC calls the "blade" a cucumber, likely some folks would start calling blades cucumber.

Possibly some folks would Words and their meanings do change from time to time certainly, but it's funny how that word 'scale', which has been around for a very long time, wasn't coined last week, a few decades back, or even 100 years ago, is still used by a great many cutlers and knife-enthusiasts, all over the world, and even here on this forum.

Here's the article I mentioned earlier from 1844, when cutlery production in Sheffield was already many hundred years old. As posters can see, it's a serious article which minutely examines various manufacturing processes in Sheffield, trades admitted to the Company of Cutlers in Hallamshire (Sheffield and the surrounding area), and specifies the terminology used by cutlers. If you click on the images, you'll be able to read the text easier. Hope it's of interest

















I've being using the word 'covers' for several years now, I don't have a problem with it. But again, relating to the point of this thread, the word 'scales' is very far from a misnomer, it has a very long pedigree, and people shouldn't be corrected for using it

 

[Jack Black]

I can't believe I got up at 5:00am to finish reading this thread. Bravo all contributors,especially Jake and Jack.

Ouch! I was up at 5.30am myself Lyle, but not for this thread! Thanks for the scans my friend, Herder generously gifted me a copy of the re-print

 

[Jack Black]

I see Stan Shaw pretty regularly, he uses 'scales', just like the cutlers who trained him 75 years ago. Maybe they were influenced by modern knives

 

[supratentorial]

Are we seeing the use of 'covers' 100 years ago?

The example quoted below is 133 years old.

1884 patent US292002A: "the covers for the handle are made from hard rubber or other composition."

An old trade journal. Google books has some scanned.

Before I discovered this subforum, I'd already spent a few years posting in the rest of the forum, in General and elsewhere, and in the rest of the forum, they're known as 'scales', so pretty common usage I think. Of course there are a lot of other knife forums too, and there's real life, and the rest of the world

There are a lot of particulars that might be considered. For example, much of the discussion in general is about modern knives. There are also differences in factory talk and net talk. In present day manufacturing, I said (a few posts up) there seems to be a split in the terms used. I gave Case, GEC, CSC and Schrade as examples of manufacturers that use the word "cover". And I say that "scale" is popular among modern knife manufacturers.

I will look at the rest, especially the cool scans, when I'm not multi-tasking. Thank you for posting them.

 

[Jack Black]

Straight razors are another matter, but fortunately we have a shaving sub-forum where straight-razors and their scales are regularly discussed

 

[supratentorial]

These are over 100 years old:

I haven't tracked down the earliest use but the use of "cover" is older than 1930. George Schrade 1905 patent filing:

"A pocket-knife comprising a handle having a lining and cover....trigger projecting outward through the cover"

From 1919 The American Cutler: "celluloid covers on steel lining or steel bolster patterns"



I don't understand what you're saying.

 

[supratentorial]

I see Stan Shaw pretty regularly, he uses 'scales', just like the cutlers who trained him 75 years ago. Maybe they were influenced by modern knives

I don't think so. I think Stan is using the word that he learned in his craft. I also think Eric uses the word that he learned in his craft at Schrade and Canal Street cutlery.

I doubt the people in general forum are using the term because they read it in 100 year old catalog or journal. They're using the term they saw from Spyderco etc or from another forum member