What folding knife did Sherlock Holmes have?

[Raymond1000]

In The Abbey Grange, published in 1904, Holmes says:

“This bottle was opened by a pocket-screw, probably contained in a knife, and not more than an inch and a half long. If you examine the top of the cork you will observe that the screw was driven in three times before the cork was extracted. It has never been transfixed. This long screw would have transfixed it and drawn it with a single pull. When you catch this fellow you will find that he has one of these multiplex knives in his possession."

This passage always gave me the impression that the “multiplex knife” predated the SAC. That may not be true. Victorinox had been around since 1897. (The SAC started out a simple soldier’s pocketknife. Tools were gradually added over the years. How many tools did the Victorinox knife of 1904 offer? Did they include a corkscrew? Inquiring minds want to know.) Holmes doesn’t identify the generic tool as a Victorinox or a “Swiss knife”, he calls it a “multiplex knife.” That suggests an already established and perhaps earlier term to me.

Holmes was a technical type. A brilliant nerd who occasionally got into the field. When he did, he came well equipped—tape measure, magnifying glass, and other tools useful in the Art of Detection. I don’t base this guess on the cannon, but on the evidence of his character. I think Holmes would have carried a multiplex knife. Chock-a-block with handy tools of his trade. One that may or may not have been made in Switzerland. I personally picture something like the stag scaled Swiss Champ I own.

 

[waynorth]

“This bottle was opened by a pocket-screw, probably contained in a knife, and not more than an inch and a half long. If you examine the top of the cork you will observe that the screw was driven in three times before the cork was extracted. It has never been transfixed. This long screw would have transfixed it and drawn it with a single pull. When you catch this fellow you will find that he has one of these multiplex knives in his possession."
My only objection to this theory is Holmes' phrase "one of these multiplex knives", which seems to put him at some distance from one, as opposed to personal familiarity with one. Elementary, really.

 

[Durwood]

...Unless he was showing his while describing the knife.

 

[Raymond1000]

“This bottle was opened by a pocket-screw, probably contained in a knife, and not more than an inch and a half long. If you examine the top of the cork you will observe that the screw was driven in three times before the cork was extracted. It has never been transfixed. This long screw would have transfixed it and drawn it with a single pull. When you catch this fellow you will find that he has one of these multiplex knives in his possession."
My only objection to this theory is Holmes' phrase "one of these multiplex knives", which seems to put him at some distance from one, as opposed to personal familiarity with one. Elementary, really.

Really Waynorth? Had The Master said, “one of those multiplex knives,” I would agree with you. Instead he said, “one of these multiplex knives”. That phrasing suggests inclusive familiarity to me.

While I was typing some other posts came in. I like Kamagong’s suggestion that Holmes would purchase a bespoke Sheffield knife, with just the tools he wanted. It would still have been a multiplex knife though.

When I mentioned the stag scaled Swiss Champ, I wasn’t supposing that Holmes carried a brick like that in his pocket. I meant that particular knife, more than any other SAC I’ve handled, feels like an old world and old time knife to me. Would Holmes have carried a knife with Bakelite scales? I think not.

 

[tomcrx]

While I was typing some other posts came in. I like Kamagong’s suggestion that Holmes would purchase a bespoke Sheffield knife, with just the tools he wanted. It would still have been a multiplex knife though.

I see it the opposite. Holmes seems like he would carry dedicated tools. His knife would be used mainly as a knife. A simple jack with a pair of tweezers in the handle at most. The overkill of a SAK like multiplex knife would seem frivolous to him. YMMV

 

[Berkley]

Whatever Holmes carried, it was sharp and easily opened in a hurry. In "The Three Garridebs" Watson describes the time when he was shot, and Holmes' reaction:

In an instant he had whisked out a revolver from his breast and had fired two shots. I felt a sudden hot sear as if a red-hot iron had been pressed to my thigh. There was a crash as Holmes's pistol came down on the man's head. I had a vision of him sprawling upon the floor with blood running down his face while Holmes rummaged him for weapons. Then my friend's wiry arms were round me and he was leading me to a chair.

"You're not hurt, Watson? For God's sake, say that you are not hurt!"

It was worth a wound - it was worth many wounds - to know the depth of loyalty and love which lay behind that cold mask. The clear, hard eyes were dimmed for a moment, and the firm lips were shaking. For the one and only time I caught a glimpse of a great heart as well as of a great brain. All my years of humble but single-minded service culminated in that moment of revelation.

"It's nothing, Holmes. It's a mere scratch."

He had ripped up my trousers with his pocket-knife.

"You are right," he cried, with an immense sigh of relief. "It is quite superficial." His face set like flint as he glared at our prisoner, who was sitting up with a dazed face. "By the Lord, it is as well for you. If you had killed Watson, you would not have got out of this room alive."

 

[waynorth]

Well Raymond, I'm not convinced of the familiarity you imply. The term "multiplex" alone seems to separate him from the knife.
I for one have yet to see that term in older Sheffield catalogs or advertising.
But I think Holmes personality precludes a sophisticated "multiplex" knife in his possession, more so than the actual terminology, living more in his mind, than in the physical world that we occupy as admirers of such fine cutlery.
He was certainly a man apart. And I'd even venture to say he would lump all participants here into categories we would protest, but would eventually have to admit contained some truth!!

The term obsessed, among others, comes to mind.

 

[smiling-knife]

On the contrary my good waynorth. IMO Holmes demonstrates considerable knowledge of the knife. He concludes that the perpetrators, in this case some thieves who help themselves to some fine port whilst on the 'job', were not experienced in the proper use of the tool. He identifies both the tool and its improper use, thus demonstrating considerable familiarity.

The Swiss Army Officer's knife had a corkscrew in 1897. The inclusion of a corkscrew on Sheffield and Solingen knives dates much earlier than that... circa late 18th century in Horseman's patterns for e.g.

Most knives of the time did not have specific pattern names. This is what I envision as a 'multiplex' knife. No doubt the rogues acquired such a knife by nefarious means, as this would surely have belonged to a gentleman of the time.

 

[navihawk]

That knife looks like it would have been a mandatory piece of hardware in everyones pocket in England back then.

 

[waynorth]

Thank you for your input Mr. Mirthful Knife!
(Your knife certainly brings a smile!)
Upon reading the account again, there seems to be a contradiction in Holmes' words. He seems to refer to two different screws, one only an inch and a half or less, the other a long one.
The implication is, the inch and a half screw CANNOT pull the cork properly. Not misuse, but incapability of performance.
I suspect a knife such as the lovely one you display would easily gain access to fine Port however!
(Of course we cannot rule out that old A.C.Doyle was the less informed than his hero!!! - )

 

[Bruce Bump]

Wow, thanks guys, this is a good discussion and some fine, very fine suggestions. I think the Thornhill and Sons that Wellington posted is among the sweetest folders I've seen...............however it may be my career job as its so dang complicated. The cutlers back then were not ordinary humans. Man thats nice!

I know he had a Jack knife but he didnt pack it on him because its stuck in the middle of his mantel. I think he carried something nicer or more useful for his investigating. He also needed a small pen blade to cut cocaine and I would think the tweezers would be handy as heck to pluck hairs from fabric. The bail would be nice to have a small lanyard for his vest pocket and the 5" size for digging a bullet out for a closer look at the murder weapon.

 

[Raymond1000]

Well Raymond, I'm not convinced of the familiarity you imply. The term "multiplex" alone seems to separate him from the knife.
I for one have yet to see that term in older Sheffield catalogs or advertising.
But I think Holmes personality precludes a sophisticated "multiplex" knife in his possession, more so than the actual terminology, living more in his mind, than in the physical world that we occupy as admirers of such fine cutlery.
He was certainly a man apart. And I'd even venture to say he would lump all participants here into categories we would protest, but would eventually have to admit contained some truth!!

The term obsessed, among others, comes to mind.

Waynorth, your evidence suggests that multiplex was not a cutler’s Term of Art. For which is interesting information I thank you.

If your contention that Holmes was a “one function, one tool” guy is correct, then I am misreading the nature of the Great Man. But I can think of no evidence that would test that question. Lacking which, let us honorably agree to disagree.

The fact that multiplex is not a Term of Art does not eliminate its use as a cogent adjective. Holmes’s precise mind would have found ‘multiplex’ a natural descriptor for a knife that served many functions. Consider this passage from the OED. I include only the nineteenth century quotes.

multiplex, adj. and n.

Pronunciation: Brit. /ˈmʌltɨplɛks/ , U.S. /ˈməltiˌplɛks/ , /ˈməltəˌplɛks/
Inflections: Plural multiplexes, (rare) multiplices.
Etymology: < classical Latin multiplex (adjective) divided into many parts, having many forms, many times as many or as much (also as noun) < multi-multi- comb. form + -plex-plex suffix1. Compare Middle French multiplex (adjective) in sense A. 1a (c1390). Compare Italian molteplice (a1332), Spanish multíplice (1567).(Show Less)
A. adj.

2. gen. Having many aspects, elements, characteristics, parts, or (esp. interrelated) features.

1822 T. L. Peacock Maid Marian i, The whole complex and multiplex detail of the noble science of dinner.
1834 T. Carlyle Sartor Resartus iii. x. 101/1 Their raiment&#8229;is fastened together by a multiplex combination of buttons, thrums, and skewers.
1886 W. Pater Ess. from Guardian (1896) 25 So multiplex is the result that minds of quite opposite type might well discover in these pages their own special thought or humour.

As for Holmes “living in his mind”…No one would deny that Holmes had a powerful intellect. But a brilliant mind alone does not a great detective make. If it did, Dr. Watson would have written the Mycroft Holmes stories. An introvert who is detached from the world does not notice the precise depth to which parsley sinks in butter on a hot day. Nor the characteristic ashes produced by different cigars.

I would suggest that Holmes’ strong mind, highly attuned to material details, is exactly the sort which would order a custom knife loaded with compact and exact tools of his trade. Not to mention a few pipe tools. It would be the rational thing to do.

 

[waynorth]

Thanks for your "honorable" suggestion Raymond. Of course I agree with it!
I may have concentrated more on the Great Man's foibles than his strengths, leading to different conclusions. Who can really say what state he was in, volatile as he was, when he shopped for cutlery. I'm quite sure today he could be diagnosed with manic depression!
But Bruce, I think, has hit upon a very important possibility, nay probability; multiple folding knives.
I recall that Remington's market studies, ca. 1919, revealed the average life of a pocketknife to be three years. Since most everyone had at least one both in Holmes' and Remington's times, we could be dealing with several examples!

 

[smiling-knife]

There is only reference to one corkscrew.

"Given the bottle was opened on the third attempt, the corkcrew was of sufficient length to open the bottle. However, If you examine the top of the cork you will observe that the screw was driven in three times before the cork was extracted. It has never been transfixed. This long screw would have transfixed it and drawn it with a single pull"

It is my understanding that Sherlock has the knife (although not described), the open bottle of port, the cork and the glasses. He is highlighting the fact that the tool was perfectly suitable for the task of opening the bottle, but that it was not deployed in an effective manner. Thus, the cork, open bottle and used glasses on the sideboard were evidence of intruders.

 

[Thomason]

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=497700&highlight=sherlock

 

[silenthunterstudios]

I finished the autobiography of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle last month or so, and would imagine that he carried a simple jackknife. I'll look back through the book. I'm sure, that whatever Doyle carried, Holmes would have carried.

Doyle was very proud of his Britain, and I am certain that whatever was carried by the detective, was from Sheffield.

 

[xbxb]

Watson describes Holmes thus:

Although in his methods of thought he was the neatest and most methodical of mankind ... [he] keeps his cigars in the coal-scuttle, his tobacco in the toe end of a Persian slipper, and his unanswered correspondence transfixed by a jack-knife into the very centre of his wooden mantelpiece ... He had a horror of destroying documents.... Thus month after month his papers accumulated, until every corner of the room was stacked with bundles of manuscript which were on no account to be burned, and which could not be put away save by their owner.[7]

7 ^ a b c Doyle, Arthur Conan (1893). The Original illustrated 'Strand' Sherlock Holmes (1989 ed.). Ware, England: Wordsworth. pp. 354–355. ISBN 9781853268960.

 

[waynorth]

There is only reference to one corkscrew.

"Given the bottle was opened on the third attempt, the corkcrew was of sufficient length to open the bottle. However, If you examine the top of the cork you will observe that the screw was driven in three times before the cork was extracted. It has never been transfixed. This long screw would have transfixed it and drawn it with a single pull"

It is my understanding that Sherlock has the knife (although not described), the open bottle of port, the cork and the glasses. He is highlighting the fact that the tool was perfectly suitable for the task of opening the bottle, but that it was not deployed in an effective manner. Thus, the cork, open bottle and used glasses on the sideboard were evidence of intruders.

Steve, how long is the screw in your knife??

 

[smiling-knife]

Steve, how long is the screw in your knife??

Coincidently with the Sherlock story, the worm on my knife is 1.5 inches long. That's the length of the wire not including the tang.

 

[Raymond1000]

There is only reference to one corkscrew.

"Given the bottle was opened on the third attempt, the corkcrew was of sufficient length to open the bottle. However, If you examine the top of the cork you will observe that the screw was driven in three times before the cork was extracted. It has never been transfixed. This long screw would have transfixed it and drawn it with a single pull"

It is my understanding that Sherlock has the knife (although not described), the open bottle of port, the cork and the glasses. He is highlighting the fact that the tool was perfectly suitable for the task of opening the bottle, but that it was not deployed in an effective manner. Thus, the cork, open bottle and used glasses on the sideboard were evidence of intruders.

Smiling knife, Holmes didn’t have the knife in question. At least, if we can believe his own words: “When you catch this fellow you will find that he has one of these multiplex knives in his possession.”

My reading of the passage is that he is comparing the efficacy of the knife’s short corkscrew to the longer and more reliable worm of the household corkscrew. Which was presumably at table or on the sideboard through the home invasion.

I know the feeling. I have a Leatherman with a corkscrew which excels at taking core samples of the cork.