NYKC Two Blade Barehead Jack.. or is it a Barlow?

Codger_64

Codger_64

Moderator
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
62,324
Here is a knife I recently received from friend Mark. He enclosed a note questioning if it was indeed a barlow, considering that it has a 15/16" bolster and has none on the other end. I fould it illustrated in the 1902 G. Worthington jobber catalog which,as usual at that time, did not name the pattern.

9le6gg.jpg

xqgh03.png


I am prone to call it a two blade barehead jack, in spite of the large bolster. Opinions?
 
I will go with barehead jack as well. A barlow has approx. 1/3 OAL bolster ...so I was told. Its a real looker!!
 
Last edited:
I forgot to mention that the OAL is 3 3/4". Somewhat larger than the few barlows I have accumulated since the November theft. And she is hefty. Iron bolsters and iron liners make for some real weight behind that bone. I don't have a NYKC dedicated reference source, but I do not see this large bolstered pattern in later Worthington catalogs.
 
That is great to see that catalog picture Michael. I have to agree with the Barehead Jack classification. Which brings up another question.......were the early Barlows made with jigged bone or just saw-cut bone scales?
 
From the "Show your Barlow" threads here and the jobber catalogs I have archived, it seems that most commonly the Barlows were either smooth or sawcut bone, if not some other material, natural or manmade. In essence, it is a form of barehead jack as well. And was generally made to be a low pricepoint knife to be purchased by boys and adults with little money to spare. Not always cheaply made, but usually constructed so as to save pennies for the manufacturer and thus the customer. In other words, "plain" was a common feature of the pattern. Just my opinion.
 
Gevonovich said:
A barlow has approx. 1/3 OAL bolster
Click to expand...

I agree.

fwiw, my Barlows have bolsters no less than 1 1/8" long, and no shield.

I have a circa 1918 Keen Kutter Barlow with jigged bone scales, with a 1.25" bolster and is 3.25" long, thats a 38% bolster to handle ratio. My Remington Barlows, and my Charlows have 37% bolster to handle ratios. My Boker barlow has a 36% ratio. My delrin handled Camillus, and my straight stamp (pre 1933) Russell have 33% bolster to handle ratios.

Waynorth has also posted many jigged bone barlows. None of them have shields either.. imho, a Barlow should not have a shield, and the bolster should be no less than 1 1/8" long. (yes there are some modern Boker and Remington, post 1960, barlows with shields)

So by those guidelines, codgers knife is a barehead jack, not because it is jigged, but because it has a shield and the bolster is less than 1" long. Codgers bolster is 25% of the handle length.
 
Last edited:
jon_slider said:
I agree.

fwiw, my Barlows have bolsters no less than 1 1/8" long, and no shield.

I have a circa 1918 Keen Kutter Barlow with jigged bone scales, with a 1.25" bolster and is 3.25" long, thats a 38% bolster to handle ratio. My Remington Barlows, and my Charlows have 37% bolster to handle ratios. My Boker barlow has a 36% ratio. My delrin handled Camillus, and my straight stamp (pre 1933) Russell have 33% bolster to handle ratios.

Waynorth has also posted many jigged bone barlows. None of them have shields either.. imho, a Barlow should not have a shield, and the bolster should be no less than 1 1/8" long. (yes there are some modern Boker and Remington, post 1960, barlows with shields)

So by those guidelines, codgers knife is a barehead jack, not because it is jigged, but because it has a shield and the bolster is less than 1" long. Codgers bolster is 25% of the handle length.
Click to expand...

Excellent information Jon! That makes sense to me. When I sent Michael the knife I thought it might be a barlow due to it's heft and large steel bolsters......it is a beast.
 
I´ve also heard about the measurement of ca. 1/3 (or more) of the handle needs to be the bolster. So I tend to call that nice knife a barehead Jack.
 
Thanks guys! I should mention that when Mark calls it a "beast" it refers not only to the heft but to it's bite. It snaps like a gator on both blades. To the point that opening both blades at once endangers one's fingers.

Refering to the picture and catalog illustration one can see how much blade loss there is on the pocket blade. Some mechanic, at some point in it's history evidently diddled the kicks to lower the pocket blade in the frame. He acomplished his task but in a rather sloppy manner. I am considering sending it to a cutler to be cleaned up where he used a power tool, and reflush the pivot pin. I don't think these two "fixes" will lessen it's value, but might make it more functional and appealing. It isn't in bad shape for it's age, but it is a tad closer to relic than mint flavored. More opinions?
 
It looks like a cross between a regular Jack, and a Sleeveboard Jack.
Regular Jacks more often have a square (or more square) bolster.

Nice looking pattern!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top