SOG identification help please

I've been wrong before, but I dont think thats a SOG. O-well, someone will be around to confirm ;)
 
It looks too badly fitted to be a SOG Knives product.
I am leaning towards the real thing or a reconditioned.
It's just too bad you don't have a sheath or anything else to make things easier to make an educated guess.
 
My guess would be that it is either an original or a reproduction not made by SOG. Our knives use a slightly different construction on the pommel. Also, the handle is shaped a little differently than our handles are. Check out the SOG Bowie page on the SOG site for a couple more pictures. I will be adding more pictures today and will add one of the pommel for comparison.

http://sogknives.com/store/S1C.html

Chris
 
Thanks Chris@SOG.

On the link you provided, the first sentence says your knife (S1C) is a replica of the original Vietnam knife. Could mine be an original, as you mentioned????
 
That knife is commonly called a SOG due to it's association with the Studies and Observation Group, deployed in SE Asia in the 60's. It wasn't made by the SOG company, but by contractors overseas. It is not THE original SOG knife (the RECON), but is one of the Vietnam era knives (at least it appears to be - hard to tell with all the fakes out there). It is worth well more than any modern knives made by the SOG company, if authentic.
 
cstorr2004 said:
It is worth well more than any modern knives made by the SOG company, if authentic.
Click to expand...

You're right. Last one sold on eBay for around 4 thousand IIRC, which is ironic considering the quality of the originals is nowhere close to what is offered by SOG today.
 
It's a common misconception that one actually pay's huge sums of money just to own an actual wartime commando relic.
In fact, it's not about the quality of the knife which is at stake, because one actually pays dearly for the golden opportunity of having solely own one of the last few remaining pieces which once belonged to these legendry super secret fighting men.
-http://macvsog.cc/mainmenu.htm

Having said that, perhaps we should re-examine why anyone of us woukd have actually bought the modern day SOG Knives S1 Bowie in the first place. Considering that a vast majority of wartime originals were originally made pretty cheap, didn't last long; and were often used as service commemoratives or simply regarded as truly expendable tools by their original owners.

What I am saying is that, should any one of those originals remain in family hands today, I sure hope that they realize what a prize sticker they have in their hands. Sure sounds like an ugly ducking story; who would have expected a golden egg that from an obscure knife sourced from (of all places) Okinawa all those years ago - to be pay dirt.
 
GIRLYmann said:
What I am saying is that, should any one of those originals remain in family hands today, I sure hope that they realize what a prize sticker they have in their hands. Sure sounds like an ugly ducking story; who would have expected a golden egg that from an obscure knife sourced from (of all places) Okinawa all those years ago - to be pay dirt.
Click to expand...

You're right. The value of the history, especially if family in nature, is much higher than the value of the piece of steel. I have a WWII knife that is worth many thousands, but worth even more than that to me because of my family members that owned it...
 
GIRLYmann said:
In fact, it's not about the quality of the knife which is at stake, because one actually pays dearly for the golden opportunity of having solely own one of the last few remaining pieces which once belonged to these legendry super secret fighting men.
Click to expand...

Apparently other knife buyers have very different priorities than I do. Five thousand for a W.F. Moran I can understand; however you evaluate the man's knives either from quality or performance, they're legendary. Five thousand for a crude Okinawan-made military knife used in the first conflict America lost, well, to each his own.

we should re-examine why anyone of us woukd have actually bought the modern day SOG Knives S1 Bowie in the first place.
Click to expand...

My reason had nothing to do with its Vietnam heritage. There was some real care put into its design, it's still a functional tool if need be, but above all, it's aesthetically pleasing. The knife is well made and looks good. If you put two knives on a table, the first a Mission Knives MPK and the second a SOG S1, there's no question which is better looking. It doesn't matter that the MPK is probably stronger and more corrosion resistant due to its titanium blade. It's a still a very high quality, completely American made, and very ugly knife.
 
cstorr2004; that's right, When it comes to adding to the family tradition (especially military service), this heritage of patriotism is what one hopes to keep alive for generations.

Vaako: you're right too. I myself would not consider paying a single cent more beyond that of a said personal celing price (make that affordable within one's means) for anything. Well, not unless it has great historic value (either personal or national in nature); or one which is recognised to have an intrinsic monetary value as an investment piece. However, it is for the sake of this argument - that everything sold or bought especially in an auction is on a concept of a "willing buyer-willing seller" situation. An auction house may dictate the opening bid, but that sometimes it is falsely appreciated just so someone can overly feed the wife and family, if you know what I mean.
So it is agreed than, to each his own; in the concept of - "one for all, and all for one!" As a general rule - buy the knife, not the lure.
 
Where the heck did you get the idea we lost the War of 1812, Bubba? :confused:

The US inflicted a nearly 2 to 1 kill ratio against the British, stopped the impressment (abduction) of US sailors, and finished the war on a high note handing the British army a decisive defeat at the Battle of New Orleans.

With stalemate on the battlefields, both nations agreed to a peace that left the prewar boundaries intact.
​
If we'd "lost" Vietnam in a similar fashion to 1812 or even Korea, South Vietnam wouldn't be flying a communist flag today.
 
Vaako said:
Where the heck did you get the idea we lost the War of 1812, Bubba? :confused:

The US inflicted a nearly 2 to 1 kill ratio against the British, stopped the impressment (abduction) of US sailors, and finished the war on a high note handing the British army a decisive defeat at the Battle of New Orleans.

With stalemate on the battlefields, both nations agreed to a peace that left the prewar boundaries intact.
​
If we'd "lost" Vietnam in a similar fashion to 1812 or even Korea, South Vietnam wouldn't be flying a communist flag today.
Click to expand...


The total casualties for the British army was at around 8,600, American casualties would be at around 11,300. The British had already revoked the pressganging (To force (men) into the army or navy) policy a few days before hostilities began. The signing of the Treaty of Ghent in December 1814 ended the war and restored the status quo. The treaty did not mention free trade or sailor’s rights. Two weeks after the signing of Treaty of Ghent, American troops won a decisive victory in the Battle of New Orleans. Yes after the war was already over.
 
Where are you getting your US stats, Bubba?

This site lists 2,260 dead
http://www.americanfamilytraditions.com/war_casualties.htm

This site lists 2,000 dead
http://www.libraryspot.com/lists/listwars.htm

Fact Monster confirms the first site.
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0769973.html

So does the American War Library.
http://members.aol.com/usregistry/allwars.htm

None of them list a figure of 11,300.

That aside, what did we accomplish? We ended the impressment, drove the British out, kept them out, and we lost?:confused: If only Vietnam had been so unsuccessful.
 
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/7624/Warof1812.htm

"We can take the Canadas without soldiers, we have only to send officers into the province and the people . . . will rally round our standard." William Eustis, U.S. Secretary for War, 1812.

"I trust I shall not be deemed presumptuous when I state that I verily believe that the militia of Kentucky are alone competent to place Montreal and Upper Canada at your feet." Henry Clay, Speaker of the House of Representatives, 1812.

“The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us the experience for the attack on Halifax, the next and final expulsion of England from the American continent.” Thomas Jefferson, 1812.

You call that winning?
 
I call that over-extending yourself while accomplishing your initial objectives.

We did accomplish what we initially set out to do (i.e. beat the Brits). Then we got greedy. But we did accomplish the original objective which is a 'win'.

To give an analogy, it would be the same as if while defeating the North Koreans and driving them out of the south, the coalition forces had then tried to take all of North Korea and China. If that had happened and the coalition forces were driven back themselves to the original north-south border, would that be a lost conflict since they did accomplish their original objective?

In Vietnam, we didn't even accomplish what we set out to do.

btw. Where did you get the 11,300 US figure?
 
Nor do they agree with the five other sites which corroborate the figures I listed. Funny thing about that.

Then again, you accidentally omitted the fact that the 11,300 figure you've been citing also includes "disease" as opposed to actual fatalities. Medicine being what it was at the time, people got sick very easily. It's dubious in the extreme to place an accurate figure on illnesses attributable specifically to combat. Does a soldier who, say, died of the flu while serving count as a combat fatality when civilians living nearby also died of the same illness because it was catching that year?

Ultimately, victory and defeat are decided by the results:

The United States achieved their main goals of ending impressment in practice and restoring free trade...

The War of 1812 was seen by the people in British North America, and later Canada, as a major victory, although not a complete one.

The Royal Navy, however, was acutely conscious that the United States Navy had won most of the single-ship duels during the War.
​

So the US got what it wanted while beating the Brits on land (again) and beating their vaunted navy, as well.

Yeah, we sure lost that one.

Don't feel too bad, Bubba. I'm sure you'll be able to add Iraq to America's military failure in Vietnam, give or take a couple of years.
 
Funny thing about that is four out of the five sites you listed collaborate exactly 2260 Americans dead. Then again, you accidentally omitted the fact that none of them collaborate the 4520 British dead figure you've been citing for your "nearly 2 to 1 kill ratio against the British". I didn't accidentally omitted any thing. I wrote "total casualties" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualty_(person) and used the correct meaning of the word casualties. But in all fairness it would appear you made a common mistake in thinking the word casualties means the same thing as fatalities (deaths).
Once again the British had already revoked the pressganging (To force (men) into the army or navy) policy a few days before hostilities began. The signing of the Treaty of Ghent in December 1814 ended the war and restored the status quo. The treaty did not mention free trade or sailor’s rights.
So the Brits stopped the Americans from invading British North America (again) so the U.S. got what it wanted? You call that winning? I don't feel too bad at all thanks and I'm not trying to add anything to anything. Someone asked me "Where the heck did you get the idea we lost the War of 1812, Bubba?" And I just answered their question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top