SOG identification help please

About the knife..........I believe the original vietnam era knives had a slightly thinner blade also a kind of purple colour but no markings...."sterile"...
I have seen knives with the markings like yours made by hattori in japan. I suspect it's a hattori knife aged to look like a vietnam knife.
 
Based on information found in Bernard Levine's forum, there were Vietnam era SOGs with markings like yours, with the abbreviation for Airborne (Abn) inscribed on the blade after the unit designation. They were ordered by the 5th Special Forces Mess Association (the organization's 'sports club') and used during the conflict and beyond. The first SOGs were sterile - but this is a later production run produced specifically for the aforementioned organization. I own one, that has been authenticated by Mike Silvey and previously owned by John Gibson, both well known in the field of Military Knives, and it is just like yours.

I'm glad this discussion is back on course, relative to the original post. I thought this was gonna have to be moved by moderators to Whine and Cheese the way things were going...
 
Why should it be moved to whine and cheese? Everyone is being polite and civil. Disagreeing and being disagreeable are two different things.

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).

On the contrary, Bubba. I anticipated you'd try that approach to inflate the figures which is why I chose to deliberately narrow the numbers down what I believed we both could agree are definitely "casualties". Being wounded in a battle doesn't automatically put someone out of combat permanently. From the technical point of view, the wounded soldier is a "casualty". If he's back in the field a few days later, he isn't out of action.

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 by your reasoning, the fact it wasn't explicitly stated means it wasn't an issue. If so, you shouldn't even be discussing the invasion of Canada because it wasn't even listed in our declaration of war against GB. Touché!

Even so, The war gave the Brits a real understanding of what would happen if they resumed blockades and impressment, previously signed agreements and treaties or not. True, the US didn't demand the concession in writing. That's diplomacy. If you've beaten your opponent you don't always have to make him cry "uncle". You let him leave with a little face and he feels better about himself. In a larger sense, the war also established the US as a world power internationally.

Such would not be the case had they lost, which is one of the reasons the US lost prestige after Vietnam.

I know 1812 is a big thing with Canadians and partially stimulated the need for the Canadian Confederation, but truthfully, it's seen very diffrenently by both of the real protagonists in the conflict.

This has been debated all over the 'net with your fellow Canadians invariably claiming the US "lost". More level-headed sources have a general consensus the war was a draw between Britain and the US.

Even accepting that argument shows something. A small former colony, a newly emergent nation, fought a world super-power to a draw.

To give an analogy, a small scrawny guy gets into the ring with UFC champ Tim Sylvia. They go 5 rounds, Tim Sylvia and the little guy decide they've had enough, the refs call it a draw, and the Canadians keep claiming the little guy "lost".

Oh, Bubbah... :)

At any rate, there wasn't any dispute over Vietnam. Quite the contrary. In a way it was 1812 reversed and made worse. A bunch of communist guerrillas fought a world super-power who was defending a democratic ally. The communists took the country and drove the super-power's troops out.

That definitely is a loss, which is one of the reasons the romantacism of "Vietnam era" knives seems so puzzling. Outside of family heirlooms, a memento of a national defeat seems misplaced. Collectors obviously have an entirely different perspective on it.
 
english mark: Sorry, but I beg to differ. Quite possibly Hattori is the OEM for the S1 Bowie marketed by SOG Knives. They are virtually identical, note that even the main blade is ground from SK5 steel. The only exception being that their version (Hattori's), the "TV-1 Black Bowie Knife"; has a satin finished stainless steel butt cap and guard. Which I may add, makes a much better choice for presentation (and usin') material in the long run. I am certain that their quality and finishing is top notch. And besides bearing their stamped logo "Hattori"; I am further of the opinion that the original knife posted about here isn't anywhere near the fit and finish of a genuine Hattori product.
Furthermore, bluing a blade to perfection isn't quite that quite simple a task. It requires firstly that the blade be hot blued in a tank. Inconsistent and incorrect temperature and different bluing solutions give rise to some very imperfect bluing, thus giving rise to some rather unique colors other than a deep gun "blue". You can't correct or cover up a mistake, it has to be redone by stripping away the blued finish. Considering that re-blued blades would have their metallic steel edges blued as well (not unless it is resharpened after that). The same goes for the commemorative stamping, if this was NOT done prior to bluing, the letters would turn out silver, as the blued area would have been displaced by the pressure of the stamping. You could touch up with some cold blue, but the colour may turn out different or could ruin or mar the overall surfaced finish into a splotch of mismatch color. So I still would rather go with my earlier post.
 
Once again. "Among the general public, casualties is sometimes misunderstood to be the same thing as fatalities (deaths), but non-fatal injuries are also casualties. In military usage, casualties usually has a more specific meaning, and refers to all persons lost to active military service, which includes those killed in action, killed by disease, disabled by physical or mental injuries, captured, deserted, and missing. Less serious wounds that do not prevent a person from fighting are usually not counted as casualties. The sum of casualties is known as the casualty count." I don't know what part of this your not understanding. I wrote the total casualties for the British army is at around 8,600, American casualties would be at around 11,300. I wasn't trying to inflate anything. I got these figures from a web page same as you did. If you want to use troops killed then we'll use that I don't care. British 1,600, American 2,260. No matter which figures you use it still doesn't support your claim the US inflicted a nearly 2 to 1 kill ratio against the British. By the way where did you get the 2 to 1 kill ratio against the British figure?

I'm saying that to say the Americans won the war of 1812 because they got pressganging policy stop doesn't make sense because the pressganging policy had already ended before the war started. To say that the war gave the Brits a real understanding of what would happen if they resumed blockades and impressments doesn't make sense and the fact that it wasn't included in the Treaty of Ghent proves it. It wasn't an issue because it no longer existed. It no longer existed before the Americans invaded. The U.S. didn't demand the concession in writing because it no longer existed. So by your reasoning if an invading Country is beaten back by the invaded Country then the invading Country won.
 
I don't know what part of this your not understanding. I wrote the total casualties for the British army is at around 8,600, American casualties would be at around 11,300.

Easy. I'm contesting the fact that the notion of non-fatal and permanently incapacitating injuries weren't as clearly defined at the time as they are now. That's why I stuck with fatalities.

I'm saying that to say the Americans won the war of 1812 because they got pressganging policy stop doesn't make sense because the pressganging policy had already ended before the war started.

America also restored free trade and ended the British Navy's economic stranglehold on the US which also count as mucn more relavent and far more significant victories against the British, but who cares about that.

To say that the war gave the Brits a real understanding of what would happen if they resumed blockades and impressments doesn't make sense and the fact that it wasn't included in the Treaty of Ghent proves it.

I think I already mentioned the diplomatic reasoning behind that, Bubba. By contrast, you could also say that any incursions into Canada aren't an issue at all because conquering Canada wasn't in the declaration of war against Britain proves it as well. But that's not the logic you're using. Instead, you're choosing to claim that the impressment issue which was unspoken doesn't count where as the "Canadian" issue which was also unspoken does. That's logically inconsistent and self-contradictory.

So by your reasoning if an invading Country is beaten back by the invaded Country then the invading Country won.

The War of 1812 was fought between Britain and the US. It was fought on both US and what is today Canadian soil with expansions by the British and the States being being mutually repulsed. Which is why level headed scholars see the war as a "draw". Considering Canada wasn't even "country" at the time and the defending forces were led by the British (because it was a war between Britain and the US) makes it impossible for Canada to be an invaded "country" at that time. Regrettably, many Canadians are still laboring under a tragic misconception and a somewhat overinflated perception of their role in the war.

The idea that one cause of the war was American expansionism or desire for Canadian land was much discussed among historians before 1940, but is rarely cited by experts any more.[4] Some Canadian historians propounded the notion in the early 20th century, and it survives in Canadian mythology.[5]

...which is the only reason such notions are again being advanced here.
 
Easy. I'm contesting the fact that the notion of non-fatal and permanently incapacitating injuries weren't as clearly defined at the time as they are now. That's why I stuck with fatalities.



America also restored free trade and ended the British Navy's economic stranglehold on the US which also count as mucn more relavent and far more significant victories against the British, but who cares about that.



I think I already mentioned the diplomatic reasoning behind that, Bubba. By contrast, you could also say that any incursions into Canada aren't an issue at all because conquering Canada wasn't in the declaration of war against Britain proves it as well. But that's not the logic you're using. Instead, you're choosing to claim that the impressment issue which was unspoken doesn't count where as the "Canadian" issue which was also unspoken does. That's logically inconsistent and self-contradictory.



The War of 1812 was fought between Britain and the US. It was fought on both US and what is today Canadian soil with expansions by the British and the States being being mutually repulsed. Which is why level headed scholars see the war as a "draw". Considering Canada wasn't even "country" at the time and the defending forces were led by the British (because it was a war between Britain and the US) makes it impossible for Canada to be an invaded "country" at that time. Regrettably, many Canadians are still laboring under a tragic misconception and a somewhat overinflated perception of their role in the war.

The idea that one cause of the war was American expansionism or desire for Canadian land was much discussed among historians before 1940, but is rarely cited by experts any more.[4] Some Canadian historians propounded the notion in the early 20th century, and it survives in Canadian mythology.[5]

...which is the only reason such notions are again being advanced here.

And so I guess that means your not going to tell me where you got your 2 to 1 kill ratio against the British figure from?
 
I guess that means you're clinging to whatever I've left you.

Since you asked the value came from a site whose data, on closer inspection, I couldn't entirely verify to my satisfaction.


"...it survives in Canadian mythology." What a send-off. I don't often say it but :D pwned.:D
 
I guess that means you're clinging to whatever I've left you.

Since you asked the value came from a site whose data, on closer inspection, I couldn't entirely verify to my satisfaction.


"...it survives in Canadian mythology." What a send-off. I don't often say it but :D pwned.:D

In the course of his speech, Representative Taggart gives a complete accounting of Federalist objections to the war. For example, he says the following about the ambitions of those who wanted to conquer Canada:
"The conquest of Canada has been represented to be so easy as to be little more than a party of pleasure. We have, it has been said, nothing to do but to march an army into the country and display the standard of the United States, and the Canadians will immediately flock to it and place themselves under our protection. They have been represented as ripe for revolt, panting for emancipation from a tyrannical government…. But to invade a country with any prospect of success, the power of the invader needs to be much greater than that of the party invaded." Representative Taggart ,1812

Thats what I thought.
 
Simply because Rep. Taggert incorrect beliefs and misconceptions coincide with yours doesn't prove either of you right.

A consensus among the incorrect proves nothing.

If you have any doubts, hop on over to a conspiracy theory site.
 
english mark: Sorry, but I beg to differ. Quite possibly Hattori is the OEM for the S1 Bowie marketed by SOG Knives. They are virtually identical, note that even the main blade is ground from SK5 steel. The only exception being that their version (Hattori's), the "TV-1 Black Bowie Knife"; has a satin finished stainless steel butt cap and guard. Which I may add, makes a much better choice for presentation (and usin') material in the long run. I am certain that their quality and finishing is top notch. And besides bearing their stamped logo "Hattori"; I am further of the opinion that the original knife posted about here isn't anywhere near the fit and finish of a genuine Hattori product.
Furthermore, bluing a blade to perfection isn't quite that quite simple a task. It requires firstly that the blade be hot blued in a tank. Inconsistent and incorrect temperature and different bluing solutions give rise to some very imperfect bluing, thus giving rise to some rather unique colors other than a deep gun "blue". You can't correct or cover up a mistake, it has to be redone by stripping away the blued finish. Considering that re-blued blades would have their metallic steel edges blued as well (not unless it is resharpened after that). The same goes for the commemorative stamping, if this was NOT done prior to bluing, the letters would turn out silver, as the blued area would have been displaced by the pressure of the stamping. You could touch up with some cold blue, but the colour may turn out different or could ruin or mar the overall surfaced finish into a splotch of mismatch color. So I still would rather go with my earlier post.

Yep...fair enough....I agree with everything you say,what i should of said in my post is " I suspect it could be a Hattori" but equally it could be something else.....I was just throwing out a guess really.
Incidentally there was a website i looked at some time ago that had the history of the SOG bowie and all it's variants and also info relating to how modern knives were being altered to look like vietnam originals.....but i can't for the life of me remember where I saw it.....I thought this knife may of been one of them.

also my apologies to Vaako for hijacking this thread by talking about knives.....my bad.
 
Simply because Rep. Taggert incorrect beliefs and misconceptions coincide with yours doesn't prove either of you right.

A consensus among the incorrect proves nothing.

If you have any doubts, hop on over to a conspiracy theory site.

A conspiracy theory site? Not the "I call that over-extending yourself while accomplishing your initial objectives" site? :eek:
 
Back
Top