Thank you Scott. Not all "stories" are wrong but no stories should be used to validate a knife without SOME back up. This story has none, not even a letter from the family. And the "story" wasn't even mentioned until the authenticity of the vintage of the knife was questioned. Suddenly a "story" appears?
I don't give a rats about who told what story about that knife or what "dealer" said what to whom. The knife has a lot of 1960s by the components that are on it... It is a LONG way from being one of the first 13-12s ever made... You can go back and look at the pictures I posted of knifes that are truly early. This one is not.... time to man up and admit it.
Just to remind you of the difference here are several Bowie and model 13 knives. One is truly one of the earliest made and others are very early The subject knife is not early. Even the differences in the hilts are obvious.
"Credibility" is a limited asset and once lost is hard to get back. Well, lots of credibility has been lost here ... I would think twice about dealing with him on any level now.
That guy Beauchamp on E-bay writes the kind of junk that he wrote about this knife.
Perhaps he should not have gone on line and made such an unsupported dramatic avowal about something he doesn't know much about (vintage Randall knives). Low key is a better pitch.
I am not the conscience of the collecting community. But I would hope the COLLECTING community does not allow one person's long time involvement to excuse him from criticism when he is falsely hyping a knife for commercial gain. If a community does excuse such behavior
(and that is what seems to be happening), they can no longer be trusted. Everything in that community must then must be seen through the lens of someone trying to make money off of the gullible, not collecting.
It is unimportant to me what others post about my comments elsewhere.