"Old Knives"

Nice earlier Utica's Steve and Cal!!
Cal, that is something else my friend! Wow!

Steve, here's a distant cousin to yours, very short lived Utica Knife and Razor Co.

MyBWxDA.jpg


yEB1dVE.jpg
 
3 3/8" senator imported from Germany. Still pretty nice. The file is a bit dark. The pearl is just fine. Crispy and half stops all around.

CURTIN & CLARK CUTLERY CO. KANSAS CITY MO Circa 1910-1920. This firm began in St. Joseph, Missouri, dealing in hardware, stoves, tinware and cutlery in 1898. In 1909 the business in St. Joseph ceased to deal in cutlery. The Kansas City firm was opened in the meantime, and dealt in cutlery only. The cutlery’s address in Kansas City was 8th and Broadway, Isaacs Building. “CCC” was a trademark, usually stamped out on the blade. They did not make their own knives. The Tidioute Cutlery Company of Tidioute PA made many of their knives.
— Goins’ Encyclopedia of Cutlery Markings, 1998 edition
Edit: Not my fingers.

1771467163_3182_1.jpg1771467163_3182_2.jpg1771467163_3182_3.jpg1771467163_3182_4.jpg
 
Cattaraugus 21346 @ 3.75" closed. One of my two favoritist Catt's out of twelve I have secreted away from the Wife and Dog. Katie (not the Wife) would be interested in anything loose. She was a new pup and a terror when this pic was taken. She is pretty mellow now; not commenting on the Wife.Best one in this group.JPGCatt 21346.jpg
 
Last edited:
tongueriver said:
Minty (well...mayb not quite minty) Schrade CutCo electrician with Empire shield.

View attachment 3126264View attachment 3126265View attachment 3126266View attachment 3126267View attachment 3126268View attachment 3126269
Click to expand...
"TO RELEASE PUSH CENTER LOCK TO LEFT"
I wonder how many tried pushing to the RIGHT before Schrade's liability lawyers forced that blade etch?
A precursor to Mc Donalds putting "CAUTION! CONTENTS MAY BE HOT" on the disposable paper "coffee" cups idiocy?
 
tongueriver said:
Cattaraugus 21346 @ 3.75" closed. One of my two favoritist Catt's out of twelve I have secreted away from the Wife and Dog. Katie (not the Wife) would be interested in anything loose. She was a new pup and a terror when this pic was taken. She is pretty mellow now; not commenting on the Wife.View attachment 3125808View attachment 3125809
Click to expand...

Nice Cat! I won’t ask about your wife😄
 
afishhunter said:
"TO RELEASE PUSH CENTER LOCK TO LEFT"
I wonder how many tried pushing to the RIGHT before Schrade's liability lawyers forced that blade etch?
A precursor to Mc Donalds putting "CAUTION! CONTENTS MAY BE HOT" on the disposable paper "coffee" cups idiocy?
Click to expand...
Kramer exposed to the world the dangers of their hot coffee,and Jackie Chiles made sure that it would never happen to any more idiots.
 
waynorth said:
That "Push Left" caution predated our extremely litigious age I think!!
Click to expand...
Like the "CAN OPENER" stamp on the "DEMO" and related Mil. Issue knives equipped with the "Safety" can opener?

Makes me wonder ... "How stupid did the Generals 'think' the enlisted men and lower ranked officers were, that it was necessary to stamp it on the tool ... or worse ... did they have the can opener stamped "CAN OPENER" to remind themselves what that blade/tool is?"
 
Last edited:
afishhunter said:
Like the "CAN OPENER" stamp on the "DEMO" and related Mil. Issue knives equipped with the "Safety" can opener?

Makes me wonder ... "How stupid did the Generals 'think' the enlisted men and lower ranked officers were, that it was necessary to stamp it on the tool ... or worse ... did they have the can opener stamped "CAN OPENER" to remind them what that blade/tool is?"
Click to expand...
I think it reminded the enlisted men that the men were the can openers!! Mom wasn't there!! 😂
 
The 1994 case Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants is a landmark in U.S. product liability law, often misunderstood due to a widespread media narrative portraying it as a frivolous lawsuit.

The Incident (1992)
  • Plaintiff:
    Stella Liebeck
    , a 79-year-old grandmother.
  • Event:
    Liebeck
    purchased a 49-cent cup of coffee from a McDonald's drive-thru in Albuquerque.
  • The Spill: While the car was parked, she placed the cup between her knees to remove the lid and add cream and sugar. The coffee spilled onto her lap.
  • Injuries: She suffered third-degree burns on 6% of her body (including her inner thighs, groin, and buttocks) and lesser burns over 16%.
  • Medical Treatment: She was hospitalized for eight days, required skin grafts, and faced two years of follow-up treatment.

    Key Evidence at Trial
  • Temperature: McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190°F. Experts testified this causes third-degree burns in 3 to 7 seconds. For comparison, home coffee is usually 135–150°F.
  • Prior Knowledge: McDonald's admitted it knew its coffee was a burn hazard and had received over 700 reports of similar burn injuries between 1982 and 1992.
  • Initial Offer: Before suing, Liebeck only asked for $20,000 to cover medical expenses. McDonald's countered with just $800.

    Legal Result (1994)
  • The Verdict: The jury found McDonald’s 80% at fault and Liebeck 20% at fault.
  • Compensatory Damages: Originally $200,000, reduced to $160,000 due to her 20% share of fault.
  • Punitive Damages: The jury awarded $2.7 million, equivalent to roughly two days of McDonald's coffee revenue, to punish the company's "callous" behavior.
  • Final Settlement: The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000 (totaling $640,000). Both parties eventually reached a confidential settlement before an appeal could be decided.
 
tongueriver said:
The 1994 case Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants is a landmark in U.S. product liability law, often misunderstood due to a widespread media narrative portraying it as a frivolous lawsuit.

The Incident (1992)
  • Plaintiff:
    Stella Liebeck
    , a 79-year-old grandmother.
  • Event:
    Liebeck
    purchased a 49-cent cup of coffee from a McDonald's drive-thru in Albuquerque.
  • The Spill: While the car was parked, she placed the cup between her knees to remove the lid and add cream and sugar. The coffee spilled onto her lap.
  • Injuries: She suffered third-degree burns on 6% of her body (including her inner thighs, groin, and buttocks) and lesser burns over 16%.
  • Medical Treatment: She was hospitalized for eight days, required skin grafts, and faced two years of follow-up treatment.

    Key Evidence at Trial
  • Temperature: McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190°F. Experts testified this causes third-degree burns in 3 to 7 seconds. For comparison, home coffee is usually 135–150°F.
  • Prior Knowledge: McDonald's admitted it knew its coffee was a burn hazard and had received over 700 reports of similar burn injuries between 1982 and 1992.
  • Initial Offer: Before suing, Liebeck only asked for $20,000 to cover medical expenses. McDonald's countered with just $800.

    Legal Result (1994)
  • The Verdict: The jury found McDonald’s 80% at fault and Liebeck 20% at fault.
  • Compensatory Damages: Originally $200,000, reduced to $160,000 due to her 20% share of fault.
  • Punitive Damages: The jury awarded $2.7 million, equivalent to roughly two days of McDonald's coffee revenue, to punish the company's "callous" behavior.
  • Final Settlement: The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000 (totaling $640,000). Both parties eventually reached a confidential settlement before an appeal could be decided.
Click to expand...

Thank you for posting that - when it was referenced earlier I wanted to look up the exact details and post them, but haven't had time yet. This case is a marvelous example, not of a frivolous lawsuit, but of a very large corporation spinning things so their misdeeds look like someone else's problem. This spin has continued for decades. Thanks for the very detailed commentary (much better than what I was going to post!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top