Slipjoint users in the 1800-1900's: did they expect Fit & Finish we do?

Macchina

Macchina

Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Messages
5,213
I have only been a collector of traditional knives for a few years, and my main focus has always been GEC knives. Because of this, I feel I am able to be very picky about a sub-$100 knife being made near perfectly. The springs on a modern slipjoint are expected to be flush in the open and closed positions, the blades centered and tight, and gaps are looked down on even if they don't affect function in any way.

Back in the heyday of traditional knives (let's say from the end of the Industrial Revolution to WWII) were pocket knives to this high (or higher) standards? Often when I see the old advertisements for slipjoints there is an option to buy a dozen at a time. This would imply to me that the knives are being cranked out at a rate that would prohibit the careful fitting and finishing grinding that we see in modern slipjoints. Many of the nicer knives advertised before the turn of the 20th century were less than a dollar.

Of course, many knives back then were a nickle and were designed to be used. I'm not talking about the knives that used and ground away in a year, I'm referencing the finer knives that today's traditional knives imitate.

If we reference this catalog page of Ulster knives from 1886 (Credit to lambertiana it is his picture, (can be seen in Blues' Sticky thread)):
HSB1886710.jpg


The average cost on this page is approximately $8 for a dozen knives (about $0.67 each). Using an online calculator we find that this means a knife would cost about $17.40 when adjusted directly for inflation. HOWEVER, people didn't buy as much stuff back then and when you adjust the value for an Unskilled Worker's wages you find the VALUE of one of these knives is actually about $95.70.

This would compare almost directly with any decent GEC, Queen, or Canal Street slipjoint with the same features shown in the catalog (double blade, double bolster, with a shield and Ebony covers).

So if the value of these knives are almost the same, which had better Fit & Finish? Are we spoiled now by fine knives or are we finally seeing a return to the quality once expected in slipjoint knives? I know consumer protection laws did not exist back then in the way they do now, so what did people do when they received a poorly made knives that cost them a couple day's wage?
 
Last edited:
From the relative small sampling size of knives from this vintage period that I've sampled I'd say they had as good or better quality as GEC. I'd venture to say that GEC's mark for quality stems from the quality set by these relatively early examples of industrially produced knives.

For instance GEC uses a lot of the steps that went into producing knives from this period that have long gone extinct. Heck they went out of their way to find and use a lot of the same machines!
 
I only have a few examples from this time period- Remington, Cattaraugus and Wards (not sure who made the Wards...). I purchased them because I am AMAZED at the fit, finish and attention to detail, easily rivaling any production knife today. Flush half stops, perfect swedge & blade grinds, just as much a work of art as a hard working tool.

So, based on that (very!) limited base for comparison, I have to believe the spectrum of high to poor quality was just as prevalent then as it is today.

The only thing that's really changed are the means of manufacture - automation, precision grinding, computer control, etc... - have surely made the actual production much easier. Taking that into account gives me a profound respect for the cutlers of yesteryear!
 
I'm sure the quality of a new Ulster knife in that era was exceptional, but did contemporary consumers look at F&F? Maybe, but I'd bet not like the denizens of this forum do today. The original owners of the knives prized by modern collectors were buying tools that they used from day to day. Is it sharp? Does it perform the way I need it to? Is it solid and dependable? Those are likely the questions that mattered. If it looked nice and didn't snag in the pocket, so much the better.
 
Based on the number of high quality knives that were produced "back in the day" I think they did care to some extent early on.

From my book:

“While there were many people who appreciated a fine quality knife there were increasing generations of people who didn’t have the same view on quality knives,” said Pete Cohan, formerly the curator of the National Knife Museum in regards to the demise of the cutlery industry in the United States. “They would actually be defined as being unable to differentiate strongly between an average or above average knife and a good, very fine piece. As this country begin to grow, they weren’t looking for, except for a limited, elite group, high quality knives. They were looking for something they could buy at a very low cost that did the job."

There were, of course, other factors as well.
 
Judging from the old knives I own, I'd say that, generally speaking, quality was BETTER in the period specified. How was such quality achieved at such low prices? There are a number of factors I think, including huge sales of pocket knives compared to today, massive competition, long apprenticeships, a pride of workmanship that is rarely seen these days, dirt-poor wages, and comparatively low production costs.
 
From what I've read, many workers that came from the cutlery houses of England and Germany, were basically indentured servants to whichever knife company they landed at. Prices were low for top flight work, and EVERYONE in America at the time had a knife on them.
I've found the quality in my older knives to be comparable to some of the GECs and others I own, when factoring in age of the piece.
 
All things considered, I'm not sure if F&F was as "important" to the general knife buying public as it is today, but from what limited examples I've seen, and the fact that junk knives could cost someone their life, I doubt the average quality was low. It may well have been a "given" that folding knives would have centered blades, flush back springs in all positions, and good cover to bolster fitting, and that the blades would becproperly ground, hardened/tempered, and sharpened.
 
Last edited:
You must remember; there was a GREAT Pride of Workmanship in earlier times and, I believe, it was expected and normal to make things that were a perfect as possible. In earlier times this could still be done and still allow selling at a reasonable price. IT has mainly been in modern times when labor costs sky-rocketed that companies started eliminating inspections, polishing, hand fitting etc as "un-necessary to Fit, Form or Function" If it does not effect function why put labor into a product that cuts into the profit OR ( very important ) keeps you from selling at a price point that the average person is willing to pay.
 
I think than, as now, there was a wide range of consumers. Some, may have been persnickety about fit and finish, and judging by the swank products of Sheffield, they go them. Some of the finish knives ever to be made, anywhere.

But, there was the lower end workers knives. These knives were going to live a hard life, and I think an old Remington survey predicted these knives to have a two year lifespan. Look at some of these uni yes we find in flea marts, that have been sharpened dan to a steel toothpick, of have one of the two blades snapped off. I've seen knives that looked like the owner hated it, and was bound and determined to kill it.

I was once lucky to see some old original Russell Barlows that had been found in a box in an attic. There were some pepper spots on the blade, and the ron bolsters needed some cleaning up. But aside from that, these were some rough finished knives. The saw cut bone was raw feeling, the iron liners had some gaps. By todays standards they would have been Case rejects for sure. Butmore of those old Russell's were sold at frontier trading posts and town hardware stores to working men who were going to use it as a tool that was designed to be used up and replaced once in a while.

I think modern times has produced some folks with very large disposable income, and the collectors finicky nature. But times have not changed. For every GEC lover who agonizes over a liner gap, theres somebody buying a 3.99 gas station/flea market special to beat on without a second thought. Heck, I got one as a son-in-law! Big John keeps a cheap firearm brand tactical in the glove box of his truck, and as far as he's conceded, if it can open a box or blister package, that's good enough. He's just one step removed from the box cutter with disposable blades. He thinks I'm a little nuts for my love of knives. But he thinks nothing of spending what I consider a lot of money for a cigar.

Each to their own values.
 
Some great reading so far guys. Thanks!

To expand on this question: what were factory edges like back then? I have seen in more than one place knives advertised as having NO EDGE so that the end user could put whatever angle edge on them they desired. This was pretty typical of larger butcher knives and other hard-use fixed blades. Seems like an excuse to ship a knife with one less production step to me...

It would make sense that these older knives would come with decent edges if they were all designed to work (today's knives are designed to work but many of them are purchased without any intent of ever sharpening/using).
 
I agree with a lot of the sentiments written here, especially the one about pride in workmanship. Most all of these cutlers were apprenticed up through the ranks, so the product they produced was their trade and also their reputation.

I don't think they spent any more exorbitant amount of time on these knives than anyone else, they just had their craft honed down to an efficient set of skills that could produce many quality knives in short order, and weren't being directed to cut corners in finishing. I don't think your started to see the quality of mass-produced knives start to waver until around the 40's-50's. And even then, it had more to do with the quality and cost of the materials (i.e. stamped shell knives). Also, by that time more automated processes were in place that chugged out knives at a fast pace, but were lacking the quality of a "hand-made" knife.

Some companies were able to find a happy medium of both cutting labor and material costs while at the same time producing good quality knives. I think what drives fit and finish now is cost. Nobody is going to spend their excess money on a production knife unless it meets a certain quality standard.
 
jackknife said:
I think than, as now, there was a wide range of consumers. Some, may have been persnickety about fit and finish, and judging by the swank products of Sheffield, they go them. Some of the finish knives ever to be made, anywhere.

But, there was the lower end workers knives. These knives were going to live a hard life, and I think an old Remington survey predicted these knives to have a two year lifespan. Look at some of these uni yes we find in flea marts, that have been sharpened dan to a steel toothpick, of have one of the two blades snapped off. I've seen knives that looked like the owner hated it, and was bound and determined to kill it.

I was once lucky to see some old original Russell Barlows that had been found in a box in an attic. There were some pepper spots on the blade, and the ron bolsters needed some cleaning up. But aside from that, these were some rough finished knives. The saw cut bone was raw feeling, the iron liners had some gaps. By todays standards they would have been Case rejects for sure. Butmore of those old Russell's were sold at frontier trading posts and town hardware stores to working men who were going to use it as a tool that was designed to be used up and replaced once in a while.

I think modern times has produced some folks with very large disposable income, and the collectors finicky nature. But times have not changed. For every GEC lover who agonizes over a liner gap, theres somebody buying a 3.99 gas station/flea market special to beat on without a second thought. Heck, I got one as a son-in-law! Big John keeps a cheap firearm brand tactical in the glove box of his truck, and as far as he's conceded, if it can open a box or blister package, that's good enough. He's just one step removed from the box cutter with disposable blades. He thinks I'm a little nuts for my love of knives. But he thinks nothing of spending what I consider a lot of money for a cigar.

Each to their own values.
Click to expand...

I recall my Father, brothers and sisters thinking my future brother in law was a bit crazy and wasteful when it came to knives. At that time, he owned a Moran and a few Randall's (fixed blades). He carried a largish traditional folder. We used to have sharpening sessions on the kitchen table which I really enjoyed in hind sight. He is the person that started me looking at higher priced (aka > Buck) knives and actually considering buying them.

My older brother and probably my other brothers all feel that I am wasteful in my knife buying in both number and price per unit in comparison to what they would buy. They for the most part would buy a Case or Buck slipjoint for using these days and that is about as high end as they would consider. They know little about fit and finish other than in a general sense. If it works, it's good enough for them.

The cigar example points out the different value systems we have today. It's nice that we have choices.

I believe that the overall craftsmanship in the early to mid 1900's was very good and people took pride in their work. That feeling is often lacking now and people earn so much more. We live in a disposable society now. But I wonder if for people that had a reasonable disposable income then, it was the same as now and people placed value in the things that they liked.

I like to use this example of today's "man"..... I was at a fast food hamburger place in Eastern KY and the guys I was with were tossing the trash out the window of the vehicle. I was shocked and dismayed with the behavior. But their justification was "it gives someone a job". Well, I don't need that kind of job. But it points out the way many people feel these days. If you aren't paid to do something, you won't do it and no matter the wage level, you'll still bitch about the salary or hourly rate. It is character and people had more character then they do now prior to WWII.

So, I would suspect knives of old covered the whole range of quality that we see today. People with larger disposable incomes, bought better stuff same as today.
 
Perhaps we have the sense that knives were all better made back then, because we only see the quality ones that didn't break. :D If a poorly made knife got too wobbly to use, or the backsprings snapped, it would have been thrown out long before we would have a chance to see it to compare.
 
Jack Black said:
Judging from the old knives I own, I'd say that, generally speaking, quality was BETTER in the period specified. How was such quality achieved at such low prices? There are a number of factors I think, including huge sales of pocket knives compared to today, massive competition, long apprenticeships, a pride of workmanship that is rarely seen these days, dirt-poor wages, and comparatively low production costs.
Click to expand...


Jack, this checks off every point :thumbup:
 
I think there has always been a segment of society who appreciated the finer crafted things, whether it be knives, guns, watches, or whatever. To some their accoutrements are/were a mark of distinction to them. The cutlery firms wouldn't have produced the higher end pieces if there wasn't a market. I also agree that most of the everyday users would have been used till worn out and tossed in a junk pile when no longer serviceable.

I find it hard to believe that people who did own well crafted knives of yesteryear didn't take a moment here and there to admire and ponder an item that was with them on a daily basis, and that they didn't drool over the display pieces in a shop when they had time to be there. The temptation was probably much greater for those folks that could actually handle and examine those knives before purchase. There had to be those odd duck knife nuts back then, but they probably didn't have much chance to share their obsession like we can...
 
I own a few Robeson ShurEdge knives that were produced between the World Wars, mid '20s through the '30s. The quality is excellent, very similar to GEC or Canal Street. Even though these 80+ year old knives have been used, they still have great snap and action, very good fit & finish, and the carbon steel takes a very fine edge. Gaps between springs and liners or between covers and bolsters is virtually non-existent.

My sense is that the spirit of the times was "work hard, get ahead, and make America great!" Jobs were appreciated and workers knew that if they did a shabby job someone would gladly and swiftly take their place. Knives were held in high esteem as a necessary tool that nearly everyone carried. Jack, Carl and r8shell all make good points. I believe that few consumers were what we would consider a "knifeknut," but everyone expected their tools to be of a certain quality.
 
JB in SC said:
Jack, this checks off every point :thumbup:
Click to expand...

Thanks Jerry

glennbad said:
I agree with a lot of the sentiments written here, especially the one about pride in workmanship. Most all of these cutlers were apprenticed up through the ranks, so the product they produced was their trade and also their reputation.

I don't think they spent any more exorbitant amount of time on these knives than anyone else, they just had their craft honed down to an efficient set of skills that could produce many quality knives in short order, and weren't being directed to cut corners in finishing. I don't think your started to see the quality of mass-produced knives start to waver until around the 40's-50's. And even then, it had more to do with the quality and cost of the materials (i.e. stamped shell knives). Also, by that time more automated processes were in place that chugged out knives at a fast pace, but were lacking the quality of a "hand-made" knife.
Click to expand...

Good post Glenn :thumbup: I think the two things I've taken the liberty of highlighting are connected. In Sheffield, apprenticeships could last up to ten years, when in the early days, the lads just got room and board, and even in later days were paid very little (it was the same when I was an indentured apprentice myself). They would have worked for a little mester, and their labour helped to keep costs low, but also they had to learn their craft well, and since knife production was always 'piece-work', they also had to learn to do it fast. If the work wasn't up to scratch the knives couldn't be sold, the reputation of the little mester would suffer, and he might not get any more work. Still, there is more to it than simply not wanting to starve (though that was certainly a harsh incentive), nobody respects a bad workman. Despite the appalling work conditions, the terrible pay, and the low life expectancy, these old cutlers sought to do the finest work they could, producing beautiful knives, sometimes priced beyond a lifetime's wages. Even with the simplest knives, I believe they would have been made with pride and skill. Up until the middle of the 18th century, factors had to travel to Sheffield by packhorse, travelling across steep hills, swamp-filled valleys, and through dangerous forests. There was a reason that they undertook the hazardous journey, and it wasn't to buy second-rate goods :)
 
black mamba said:
My sense is that the spirit of the times was "work hard, get ahead, and make America great!" Jobs were appreciated and workers knew that if they did a shabby job someone would gladly and swiftly take their place.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that's true Jeff :thumbup:
 
Just to add that I think one of the factors (and there are many) which led to the decline of quality in Sheffield cutlery was the huge number of Sheffield cutlers and apprentice cutlers who never returned from the Somme during WW1, where the Sheffield Regiment was virtually wiped out. Thousands more died during WW2 too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top