Old Buck Fixed Blades

M

mountainmarty

Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
50
Hi happy to be back. Been a long time since I have written a post. Got a question.... Our wonderful Buck 103 at one time was known as the Buck 110 a long time ago. Were there any other fixed blades that had their model number changed back in the day? Did the Personal get its number changed also? Any others?
 
M mountainmarty , you ask for a lot of research that is no written in one place.
The 1950's 104 later became today's model 120. The model 125 Household set a 3 knife set, later became the model 200 Empress Trio set. The 120 Filet was dropped by 1960.
So, was the 112 Skinner. The 116 Woodsman set held a 102 & a hatchet, was dropped. The 113 Elk Skinner was dropped. The 122 Scout looks like today's 107 & the 124 Ranger looks like todays 102. The 108 Sportsman looks like todays 117. The 107 Trout looks a little like today's 121. The 109 Ranger set, a twin set. Holds a 105, 107 or 108. They look like todays 102 & 105 or 121. These came out of the Buck plant at 1272 Morena Blvd. location. Probably not a complete list but most of them. DM
 
The only one I know of is the 117. Back in the day it was a folder, then a set of knives, I forget which models and now as a fixed 4.5 inch blade small special.
 
Thanks DM, thanks Les. DM you hit the nail on the head there is no one go to resource for the info I requested. That’s why I’ve asked here. I ran into this info desert while studying the twin sets Buck used to offer. I eventually found a 115 Sportsman’s TS that I could justify spending the money. Maybe I should have narrowed down my question to just the knives offered in twin sets. Even then I have read that there were special order TS that could be personalized according to what the needs of the purchaser.
 
David Martin said:
M mountainmarty , you ask for a lot of research that is no written in one place.
The 1950's 104 later became today's model 120. The model 125 Household set a 3 knife set, later became the model 200 Empress Trio set. The 120 Filet was dropped by 1960.
So, was the 112 Skinner. The 116 Woodsman set held a 102 & a hatchet, was dropped. The 113 Elk Skinner was dropped. The 122 Scout looks like today's 107 & the 124 Ranger looks like todays 102. The 108 Sportsman looks like todays 117. The 107 Trout looks a little like today's 121. The 109 Ranger set, a twin set. Holds a 105, 107 or 108. They look like todays 102 & 105 or 121. These came out of the Buck plant at 1272 Morena Blvd. location. Probably not a complete list but most of them. DM
Click to expand...
Nice job David!
 
It doesn’t make sense to ever reuse a number. So many numbers they didn’t use at all and some they used 3 different times. Keeps the hobby interesting though. Great post DM
 
eveled said:
It doesn’t make sense to ever reuse a number. So many numbers they didn’t use at all and some they used 3 different times. Keeps the hobby interesting though. Great post DM
Click to expand...

That was one of my first questions on the forum... the resuse of model numbers, after I saw a 186 folder posted in the SPS that was much different than my 186 Odyssey. You'd think that with so many numbers to choose from that there wouldn't be a need for reuse.

But like you said... it does keep it interesting.
 
Thanks gents. There were not so many early Twin sets. Other than the 116 I mentioned above, I found 2 others. The 109 Twin set holds a 105, 107 or 108.
Then the 110 Yacht set holds a 108 and a 8" marlin spike. For splicing line. Remember, this was in San Diego a coastal town.
Other than you're 115 Sportsman's set (now were in the late 60's) there was a 104 Twin set, holding a 103 & 102. Then the Trophy set which held a116 Caper and a 103 Skinner.
In my reading I also ran across a 103 all metal 8" throwing knife and model 121 stiletto made after the Italian type with an 8" blade. Very cool knives to run into. DM
 
DM I was hoping you would chime in on this post. Thank you. I had been away from this forum for a years. As I was doing my search on the TS you and other Blade Forums members were my number one resource for information! Glad to be back to thank you and the others for sharing your wealth of knowledge!
MB
 
I just did a quick calculation, but my math is a little rusty so someone might want to check it. As an example, for the 100 series with a 3 digit number with the first digit being 1, I think there are 135 different designations possible—100, 101, 102, 103, etc. I don't think Buck has used 135 designations for the 100 series.

Bert
 
The diversity of the early Buck knives is much greater than what is found in the catalogs. Yes, Buck had standard catalog items but in the early pre-factory days Buck was just as much a custom knife maker, catering to anything the customer asked for. The early knives don't always pidgeon hole nicely. Sometimes I fine it difficult to exactly pin down what the model # is because being hand made there was quite a bit of diversity in blade and handle length as well as blade width. As for twin sets, if you examine the early literature closely, you could have any two knives combined as a twin set for $1 less than the cost of the two knives individually.
 
Last edited:
eveled said:
I’m not sure where you found an extra 35 numbers between 100 & 199. But I’d love to see your calculations.
Click to expand...

EE, THANKS FOR THE HELP. You are why I said I hoped someone would check. I was wrong. What I did was calculate how many ways the 10 digits (0 thorough 9) could be combined 2 at a time, accounting for order (permutations)—for instance 1, 0; 0, 1; 2, 0; 0,2 etc—and that amounted to 90. My next thought was that what I had done didn't account for the fact that the digits appeared more than once—for example there is 11, 22, ...etc. My error was making the calculation of how many ways 10 things could be combined 2 at a time without considering order—for instance the combination 1, 0 is considered the same as 0, 1—and that amounted to 45 for a grand total of 135. THAT WAS MY MISTAKE. I should have recognized that after my first calculation there were only 10 more arrangements to consider, the 0,0; 1,1; 2,2, etc. As a result my corrected number is 100. I did say that my math is a little rusty. Either way, Buck has numbers to use without duplicating old model numbers.

Bert
 
Thanks for the explanation. I figured you overcomplicated it somehow.

I’ve done similar calculations myself. Simple mistake.

My first thought was there where 99 possibilities, forgetting about 100. If it were a 2 digit number you probably would start at 01, and not use “0” So 99 models in that series.

I teach a trade that is math heavy, and logic errors like yours happen a lot. My secret I share with my students is to always try to figure out the answer in a different way. If you can’t get the same answer two different ways don’t over commit or completely trust that answer. Lives depend on some of these answers.
 
Last edited:
eveled said:
If you can’t get the same answer two different ways don’t over commit or completely trust that answer. Lives depend on some of these answers.
Click to expand...

That's good advice, but you left two things out: 1) look at your conclusion to see if it makes sense (I didn't), and 2) don't drink wine and then try to solve something.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top