Research by Patent Number…

D

Drum4fun

Joined
Mar 21, 2018
Messages
371
Purchased at a Thrift yesterday ($11.25).
Only identifier is a tang stamp of
Patent 2,297,855 U.S.A. .
Interrogating The US Patent Office
archives indicate the inventor applied
for patent of a new bolster system…(October 1940). The patent was
Awarded (October 1942). The Utica
Cutlery Co. Of Utica N.Y. was the associated knife Company .
Ironic that the bolster appears to be the
Site of part of the failure …. Appearing to
Have been vise crushed. Not sure I would
Have purchased this as a stand alone but
It was part of a 4 knife bundle. ( Imperial 36-52’, Syracuse 35-40’, Camillus 35-mid 40’s TL-29 ).
I enjoyed researching the history … the patent actually reads like an M.I.T. Thesis.
Chas
https://imgur.com/a/0tzB8MZ
 
Meant to mention …. The patent expired
In the 50’s so that should help with age
Ranging.
 
Drum4fun said:
Purchased at a Thrift yesterday ($11.25).
Only identifier is a tang stamp of
Patent 2,297,855 U.S.A. .
Interrogating The US Patent Office
archives indicate the inventor applied
for patent of a new bolster system…(October 1940). The patent was
Awarded (October 1942). The Utica
Cutlery Co. Of Utica N.Y. was the associated knife Company .
Ironic that the bolster appears to be the
Site of part of the failure …. Appearing to
Have been vise crushed. Not sure I would
Have purchased this as a stand alone but
It was part of a 4 knife bundle. ( Imperial 36-52’, Syracuse 35-40’, Camillus 35-mid 40’s TL-29 ).
I enjoyed researching the history … the patent actually reads like an M.I.T. Thesis.
Chas
https://imgur.com/a/0tzB8MZ
Click to expand...
Is the bolster hollow? Could be a feature of the patent!?
 
Are the bolsters and grip clipped onto the liners? Maybe the patent is for an improved shell construction?
That the bolsters were crushed in a vice to me indicates damage by a previous owner. Perhaps he was trying to tighten it up because of blade play, not knowing the bolsters are hollow, and the pivot pins didn't/don't go through them?

I tried searching patent 2297855, and got this unrelated result:
View attachment 1981256
 
Here's the patent image, looks like a hollow bolster that's clipped over a special liner once the knife is assembled. It's an interesting concept; in the area where the bolster would normally be the liner has a raised horseshoe shape that's grooved around the perimeter. Once the pin is hammered, the hollow bolster, which has tabs underneath, is slid over the horseshoe shaped end with the tabs inserted into the grooves. There's a little raised tab under the hollow bolster that catches on a slot under the horseshoe end which locks it into place.

Afishhunter you're probably spot on with the previous owner having squeezed it to tighten it up. Surprise, surprise 😲😁

Utica Knife Patent.png

Eric
 
Last edited:
I recently rehandled a Colonial Barlow with an odd bolster arrangement. It also had a Patent number on it, which I looked up and found to be quite interesting.

As far as dating, I'm not sure about the knife industry, but I know from others that the Patent Number can appear on a product, or its related documentation, long after it's expiration. Because of that, I think that only the beginning date of the range is reliable for figuring out when it was made.

Mark
 
I appreciate all the insights and opinions fellas. I find the history almost as enjoyable as having the knife in hand. Not much I plan to do with this one as it will be a shelf sitter. The main blade has too much lateral play ( I suspect that is what the prior owner was trying to correct via the vise.)
It is always interesting when small clues lead to interesting revelations about these pocket knives …. I need to dig deeper in to the Utica Cutlery Co. now . Thanks again.
Chas
 
Hickory n steel said:
I've never seen any shell construction Utica knives, this is either an Imperial or Colonial.
Click to expand...
Nope.....the patent number on the tang matches the patent granted to Utica Cutlery on October 6, 1942, and the description and drawings match the construction of the knife.
WTIvmvw.jpg
 
I know the brothers who founded Colonial had worked for other companies, and was thinking one of those brothers could have been connected to this patent.

I was confused however because I see now paying closer attention to the patent drawing that it is not a true / full shell construction like I thought it was.
This is like a combination of the typical full shell construction and the Colonial ranger type construction seen on their more solid 70's+ barlows.
The covers are pinned on during construction and the bolsters snap on essentially like those later Colonial knives, but the bolsters themselves are a stamped sheet metal shell instead of a die cast bolster like those colonials.

Thank you for correcting me.
Many times these knives are seen and written off as Colonial or imperial because they look like a standard shell construction ( the covers probably don't feel loose though) , but apparently they're something different that doesn't seem to be well recognized.
 
If the springs and blades are in good condition (they appear to be from the pictures) you can just remove the hollow bolsters and replace them or make the knife into a shadow pattern.
Not the best picture, but top left knife was a shell knife before I put on some new “Texas Ebony” covers. I don’t have it after giving it to my brother or I would take some better ones:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top