I've been edc'ing the old family knives for a while now, and rotating them in and out as my whim dictates. The only modern knife of my own left that I carry is the Wenger SI in the belt pouch with the AAA LED lite.
I have already noticed something different about them now that I am using them everyday. I think our grandfathers had a better knife in some ways. There is a subtle difference in the way they feel, and in some cases the way they cut.
The old Hen and Rooster my grandad used from the 1950's on, seems trimmer than the latest ones. A friend of mine has a Hen and Rooster stockman bought about five years ago, and the handle is thicker, and even the bolsters are not as rounded off on the edges as the old one. Was the Hen and Rooster knives of five years ago made by another company and stamped under contract?
The other thing is the blade grinds. The old one has a fine flat grind all the way to the edge, with a finer edge that really gets scary sharp like an Opinel. Looking down on the spine of the blade, there is a deffinate distil taper all the way to the way to the needle like point. The newer H&R's don't have as much a taper if much at all, and seem to be thicker blades. Not as refined looking. Overall, the differences are so much when you have both knives in hand, it makes me think that the new ones are not made by H&R at all. I never noticed as much difference as when I started to carry and use grandads old knife and my hand got used to it, and the new one a friend has felt so much different soon as I held it.
When did Hen and Rooster stop being the "real" Hen and Rooster?
My next mystery is my friend Paul's old Case stockman. When I first met Paul at Fort Leonard Wood Mo., he already had the medium stockman with the red jigged bone handles. That was late 1961 to early 1962, and the blades already had a light grey patina. I saw him with that knife when we served together in Germany in 1965, and later when we ran into each other at Ft. Sam Houston in 1967 when our engineer unit shipped out for the Republic of South Viet Nam. Paul died in 1967 in action, and when I sent his personal effects home, I kept his knife. Now using that knife these days, I notice the same thing that I notice about grandads H&R, its rounded bolsters and scales are easier and trimmer feeling in the hand than the new ones. But what I really notice is the steel in the blade. It feels different when I take it lightly to a stone. My dads 1937 peanut was sent back to Case a few years back to have the half worn away main blade and cracked scale replaced. I presume they replaced it with a moden CV blade, and when I hone the peanut, it feels different against the hone than Pauls old stockman. They also feel a tiny bit different on the strop. Its not much, but its there.
Does anyone know when Case started using CV? I wonder if the old stockman of Paul's was a simpler carbon steel like 1095 or something? And dads old peanut with the replacement CV blade does not patina as quick or deep as the old Case.
Not being a collector, but an accumulator, I'm not up on the deep info on the knives. But I can see and feel a difference.
I have already noticed something different about them now that I am using them everyday. I think our grandfathers had a better knife in some ways. There is a subtle difference in the way they feel, and in some cases the way they cut.
The old Hen and Rooster my grandad used from the 1950's on, seems trimmer than the latest ones. A friend of mine has a Hen and Rooster stockman bought about five years ago, and the handle is thicker, and even the bolsters are not as rounded off on the edges as the old one. Was the Hen and Rooster knives of five years ago made by another company and stamped under contract?
The other thing is the blade grinds. The old one has a fine flat grind all the way to the edge, with a finer edge that really gets scary sharp like an Opinel. Looking down on the spine of the blade, there is a deffinate distil taper all the way to the way to the needle like point. The newer H&R's don't have as much a taper if much at all, and seem to be thicker blades. Not as refined looking. Overall, the differences are so much when you have both knives in hand, it makes me think that the new ones are not made by H&R at all. I never noticed as much difference as when I started to carry and use grandads old knife and my hand got used to it, and the new one a friend has felt so much different soon as I held it.
When did Hen and Rooster stop being the "real" Hen and Rooster?
My next mystery is my friend Paul's old Case stockman. When I first met Paul at Fort Leonard Wood Mo., he already had the medium stockman with the red jigged bone handles. That was late 1961 to early 1962, and the blades already had a light grey patina. I saw him with that knife when we served together in Germany in 1965, and later when we ran into each other at Ft. Sam Houston in 1967 when our engineer unit shipped out for the Republic of South Viet Nam. Paul died in 1967 in action, and when I sent his personal effects home, I kept his knife. Now using that knife these days, I notice the same thing that I notice about grandads H&R, its rounded bolsters and scales are easier and trimmer feeling in the hand than the new ones. But what I really notice is the steel in the blade. It feels different when I take it lightly to a stone. My dads 1937 peanut was sent back to Case a few years back to have the half worn away main blade and cracked scale replaced. I presume they replaced it with a moden CV blade, and when I hone the peanut, it feels different against the hone than Pauls old stockman. They also feel a tiny bit different on the strop. Its not much, but its there.
Does anyone know when Case started using CV? I wonder if the old stockman of Paul's was a simpler carbon steel like 1095 or something? And dads old peanut with the replacement CV blade does not patina as quick or deep as the old Case.
Not being a collector, but an accumulator, I'm not up on the deep info on the knives. But I can see and feel a difference.
