Pocket knives go down hill starting in the 80s?

[jackknife]

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the earlier knives, (by that I mean 20s-50s) mostly dropped forged, where as beginning after the 50s more steel mills were sellin' rolled steel where the manufacturers only had to have them die cut and finished on a belt grinder for the bevels.

The physics of drop forgin' would allow for more compacted thinner edges where rolled steel ground to shape, (bevels) would depend more on a proper heat treat in regards to edge holdin' ability.

I have quite a few older knives that were made in Germany, or early Western Euorpean manufactured knives that have forged blades, even my Case small Coke Bottle Damascus takes an easy edge to razor sharp and holds it three to five times longer.

I find myself gettin' ready to touch up the edge on an older forged blade and it seems to never need it, compared to some of my more current "Super Steel" knives.

I can't say when the steels changed 60's with more modern steel makin' methods or the 80s when greed was the thing runnin' most corporations and if ya wanted to compete ya had to make concessions somewhere.

There now that I've used up my quota of intelligent comments I'll go back to my normal hick self and remind ya'll one more time to get in on any of the giveaways on the traditional forums one of them ends in about 30 minutes still plenty of time to get in on a free Boker Canoe Model 200, (selfless plug for contest)

Very good question, sir! And it brings up the old forging vs stock removal arguement.

Buck knives used to drop forge thier knives back in Hoyt Bucks day. With the mechanization that transformed this country just after WW2, there were breakthoughs in the way metal products were produced. The rolling of steel became more popular, and the Buck family investigated this method. From what I remember reading back in the 1960's and early 70's, Buck was buying thier steel from the Universal Cyclops Mill in Cleveland Ohio, and Universal was rolling the steel. Acording to the factory litature of that time, Buck stated that the rolling prosess alligned and compacted the mollocules in a very similar way to the drop forging. Wenger of Switzerland also used a rolling method of treating thier steel for the sak's they made. Both companies were known for good knives.

Drop forged or rolled, that is the question. Is it nobler to suffer the sparks and flying cinders of pounding away on a hot piece of steel, or have it delivered rolled and ready to grind? Does it make a difference?

Now having used up MY quota of semi-intellegent comments, I'm going to retire to a nice toddy and my favorite chair by the fire.

 

[messer454]

Very much enjoying the history of manufacture, please keep it coming. Are any slippies drop forged today? Or I guess the better question is how do Case, Boker, Buck, Queen, etc. make theirs today? I suspect my friend was mainly talking about the drop in fit and finish changing in the 80s but he did mention edge holding as well.

I agree with the sharpening point. I like to sharpen but I am beginning to grow tired of Stainless steel knives that are so "tough" it takes more time to sharpen. Also makes it harder to teach my nephews.

 

[T. Erdelyi]

.... I like to sharpen but I am beginning to grow tired of Stainless steel knives that are so "tough" it takes more time to sharpen. Also makes it harder to teach my nephews.

Maybe it's time for a set of Diamond hones.:thumbup:

 

[silenthunterstudios]

Personally, I don't think they really went downhill, but my old Kutmaster stockman is a much better knife fit and finish wise than the new Buck and Case slipjoints I've had over the past few years. Except for the edges not being super sharp coming from the factory, I really enjoy what Queen is putting out. I've seen a few Schatt and Morgans, Moore Makers, Great Easterns and Canal Streets, and they were great knives, but a little too expensive for the average consumer buying a slippie. I have been trading my old junk knives towards several slipjoint purchases, and have gone treasure hunting for some old ones. The older ones come with character, the new ones have to absorb it.

I am very happy to see the various slipjoint custom makers out there!

 

[MatthewVanitas]

If you compare a standard Case knife today to an equivalent model 100 years ago, you will find that today's knife will cost a lot less relative to typical wages. They are more affordable for the average Joe.

This is a really interesting point. I'm too young to have much input (27), but how much time of minimum-wage labor did it take to buy a given model of Case back in 1935 versus now?


Is part of the issue that we're comparing the best-made knives of 1930 to the ordinary knives of today? Were there not plenty of companies making shoddy knifes back in 1930 that folks are overlooking (since those knives fell apart a half-century ago)?

Kind of the same thing with guns. Sure, old S&W and Colt revos look great, but there were zillions of junk guns made by factories that changed brand names every week. Most of those old guns fell apart after any use, and the ones you see in pawnshops in good condition were probably never shot. People can complain about Taurus, but they build sturdier guns than Iver Johnson ever did.

 

[lambertiana]

I have a fair amount of catalog and advertising material from the 1880-1930 time frame, so I have an idea of knife prices then. From what I have read, up until about 1900 the standard rate for labor was about $1/day, and you could get a reasonable quality two blade jack (one of the cheaper patterns) for $0.50-$1 with wood handle, with bone, stag, ivory, etc costing more. That means that the average Joe would spend anywhere from half a day's wages to a full day's wages on a knife. Now imagine what typical labor rates are today - around here most unskilled labor goes for $8-$10/hour or more. Half a day's wages would put you in the $32-$40 range, with a full day's labor running $64-$80. Split the difference for an average - what quality of knife would you get for $50 today? The average bone-handled Case costs well under that.

I have an 1887 ad that shows a bone-handled congress for $1.50. What quality would you expect from a four-blade congress today if you were to pay $100 for it today? From the same time period, a three-blade whittler with ebony scales was $1. What quality would you expect if you were to pay a full day's wages for that today?

Interestingly, the price of knives seems to have dropped by 1910-1920, at least judging by the prices in the Sears Roebuck catalog. Mechanization reduced labor costs, and quality steel was much easier to get.

 

[coffeecup]

This is a really interesting point. I'm too young to have much input (27), but how much time of minimum-wage labor did it take to buy a given model of Case back in 1935 versus now?


Is part of the issue that we're comparing the best-made knives of 1930 to the ordinary knives of today? Were there not plenty of companies making shoddy knifes back in 1930 that folks are overlooking (since those knives fell apart a half-century ago)?

That's a number of rather complicated questions. We just don't have a lot of well-preserved junk pocket knives from 75 or 100 years ago. We do have a lot of well-preserved medium-grade knives, so that might be the way to go for comparative purposes (assuming, of course, we can agree on what knives were "medium-grade;" those middle-of-the-road knives of the 1930s would be considered pretty darn good today*). Case has been a solid middle-of-the-road knife maker for a long time, they might be the best example still in business.

The next question is to ask if Case has ever been a knife typically purchased by a typical minimum wage earner? Is it today? I just don't know; Case has never been a popular brand where I've spent most of my time (and this may be a regional thing as well).

Then we have the problem of which models have continued basically unchanged over the past 75 or 100 years, and what pricing has been historically. Just guessing, but Barlows and jacks are probably the patterns to look at first.

Then there are factors related to wages. The first national minimum wage in the US was $.25/hour, beginning in 1938, but there was very little minimum-wage work. Working for the Civilian Conservation Corps came close, but that was limited to young men (17-25 at first). Wages were about $30/month + room and board, with $25 of that being sent home to the workers' families.

I can provide some wage information prior to that. Beginning about 1892, a typical wage for a carpenter/joiner was around $.36/hour (roughly $18/wk for a 45 hour week). It hovered around there til about 1910, then over the next twenty years increased to about $7.50/day.

From October 1929-1940 or so, the world was dealing with the Great Depression. What wages were available were often less than those of a decade earlier. By 1935, that same carpenter was grateful to get $.20/hour for four hours work. (And walked 12 miles to get the work--this example was a family member of mine.) Similar wage declines were noted in other trades and areas of labor; I know of a number of farm workers who worked for less than $.50 a day during this period.

Then we have to factor in the current effect of taxes. It is not enough to compare the 1938 minimum wage of $.25 with today's $5.85/hour. No one in 1938 paid income taxes (or most of the other taxes we have today) on an income of $.25/hour. Take-home on that minimum wage job may actually be about $4.50.

If you want to look at wages and prices prior to 1900, you might want to research the "Speenhamland allowance." While mostly applicable to Great Britain, it does provide a useful model for understanding actual costs to a purchaser as well as the negative effect of industrialization on income.

PS: Lambertiana, do you have a price for a Remington 1123 in 1938 or so?

 

[T. Erdelyi]

When I first started collectin'/accumulatin' knives as a kid back in the 60s, all I could afford were the old Imperials and Colonials, the lower end or so called "Dollar Knife".

I continue accumulatin' those knives in various patterns and conditions till this day.

You used to be able to find lots of near mint examples of those knives for under $5, still they laughed and I said, "Boys. git 'em while ya can 'cause soon enough they'll be a hard knife to find."

Most of those knives were "used to destruction", (a term I remember readin' in some knife mag somewhere), because they were cheap, because they were so readily available, people considered them disposable.

Most people walk by the old tin shell knives like they're diseased, not me, I'll pick 'em up and if they're still in great shape I'll buy 'em, after all they really were not that bad a knife.

Some unusual patterns like my German Glazers/Glasers Knife,, (glass cutters knife) looks kinda like a Kamp King except instead of a can opener it had a glass cutter with a nibbler.

Don't let the old cheapies pass ya by boys, before ya know it, the knives ya sneered at 10 years ago will be gone along with their history, 'cause ya know, no one ever hangs onto the packin' materials or paper from the cheap stuff we buy.

So once again my advice to the begining collectors, buy up as many of the old Imperials and Colonials ya can, oh yea and remember this too, those companies also made more expensive versions of their better selling lower end knives, I have an Imperial Platinum Series pocket knife that equals the quality of any 20s to 40s Case pocket knife.

In regards to the thought of the decline ine quality startin' in the 80s I think it started when the first cutlery company figured out a new way to increase profits and production while decreasin' overhead with just a slight decrease in quality. The American way.

 

[knifehunter50]

Most of those old guns fell apart after any use, and the ones you see in pawnshops in good condition were probably never shot. People can complain about Taurus, but they build sturdier guns than Iver Johnson ever did.

I do not agree with this. Iver Johnson made one of the best side by side
shotguns ever made. I have one made in 1906 a Champion that was owned by my granddad. I also have a Parker vhe side by side that was made 1935
that was my Dads. the fit and finish are about the same. the Iver was
33.00 new the Parker 100.00 go from there.

As for Taurus you get what you pay for.

 

[Blues]

Gents, if we could, let's try to steer this thread back on topic...Thanks! :thumbup:

 

[messer454]

Maybe it's time for a set of Diamond hones.:thumbup:

Got em. There is just something about a Norton India stone and honing oil....

It seems to be the general consensus among you fellows who have been around that fit and/or finish might have went down but quality and edge holding are still good. Perhaps hammerforging made them a bit better, perhaps not. Thank you all for your insight.

 

[Phil in Alabama]

My opinion, the general quality of pocketknives declined beginning in the late 1960's, continueing through the mid-1980's. The value of a pocketknife to the general public was declining, and the knife companies built what folks would buy, lower quality lower priced knives. Companies churned out tons of knives with very poor quality materials and finish. About the mid to late 1980's, the revival in collecting of knives reappeared, and public demand for better quality knives was answered. How much Dan Burke, Schatt and Morgan, Case Select, Case Bose, etc, was around twenty years ago? NONE. What was selling was low priced work knives like delrin handled Schrade Old Timers and Case yellowhandles. I was reading one of Bruce Voyles posts in the Schrade forum about Parker Frost knives and their history when one comment really caught attention: In the 1970's era, W.R.Case was the last and only American company even making bone handled pocketknives. Everything else was wood or plastic. In the latter part of the 1960's Queen even quit tang stamping their knives, and most all of them were handled with imitation winterbottom jigging molded plastic scales.

I think a lot of it paralleled the economic declines of the 1960's. Remember when the fine old Winchester rifles were either discontinued entirely or replaced with downgraded redesigned models circa 1964? That was the time period when the machined forgings, hand fitted parts, etc, went away on a lot of things to be replaced by injection molding, castings, stampings, etc. Not just guns and knives, nearly everything changed during that era.

 

[lambertiana]

day.
PS: Lambertiana, do you have a price for a Remington 1123 in 1938 or so?

Sorry, I can't help you there. I have seen ad prices for a number of Remingtons, but I don't have any in my possession and I don't recall specifics. I would imagine that it went for around $2.50. For reference purposes, from the 1924 Sears & Roebuck catalog you could order a Wilbert large locking folding hunter with bone scales and swing guard for $1.30; a Wilbert Elephant Toenail in the same catalog was $1.27. The Remington 1123 would cost more, but I don't think it would be much more than twice what those two Wilberts sold for. And in 1938, during the depression, prices may have been lower.

In 1887 you could order a large two-blade cocobolo handled folding hunter from Maher & Grosh for $1.50.

And if you want wholesale prices, here is just one page from an 1886 Hibbard Spencer Bartlett catalog:

 

[James Y]

I do feel that the Schrade knives that I bought in the '70s were in general better-made than the ones I later bought in the late '90s. I even had a stainless medium stockman stamped "razor-blade stainless" from the '70s that was really well-made and held its edge quite well. I also felt that the '70s ones had better edges out of the box.

IMO, the Buck Cadet medium stockman that I bought in 1978 was nicer-made than the more recent versions, except that the edge wasn't as keen out of the box as ones now. However, that particular '70s Cadet was actually manufactured for Buck by Camillus, so obviously changes in the design have occurred since then.
Jim