View Single Post
  #37  
Old 07-18-2017, 09:43 PM
crutchtip crutchtip is offline
Steel Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 104
I will post my responses in red to make it easier for the readers to distinguish what is what


Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBlade View Post
Jack,

Fantastic research and presentation! I dare say Bo would be proud and happy.

Joe,

You make your case based on the fact that the knife in question is a "Commando" as described by Bo in Gaddis' book as follows:

"During the last half of 1942 and into the first couple of months of 1943, Bo experimented with a few combat knife designs besides the Zacharias-Randall style. At first some men had him modify his catalog Models 6 and 7 hunters for combat duty. This consisted of sharpening the blade on the top edge and using a double hilt. The handles were of stag but usually not crown. He adopted the term "Commando" to denote these earliest of his double-hilted combat knives".



and the problem with that passage is? He describes Brian's knife exactly. Not a maybe, but exactly. I have examined that knife and it is a Commando, the earliest example of the type I have seen. Appreciate it, there probably isn't another.

One of the problems I have with your claim is that the description of these knives is so general and the "styles" mentioned don't help us:
1: "Zacharias style": No resemblance to the knife in question!

I bolded and underlined it for you above Ron because you obviously did not understand it. He states "experimented with designs BESIDES the Zacharias-Randall style. How much more clear can it be?!?! The micro analysis and reading into statements and pulling out the minutia to suit your needs is not working for you. You have to understand, Gaddis when writing this stuff didn't think people were going to be up his ass over analyzing and questioning every friggin syllable 30 years after the fact. A good start would be to thoroughly read the material and not be so anxious to be "right" or should I say, attempt to prove someone else wrong.

2. Any other "Commando" that was a modified Hunter (Handle material notwithstanding): No resemblance to the knife in question!
You probably have more Commando photos that anyone else. In this thread I've asked you to post any other "Commando" with a likeness and you couldn't do this. If you want to see a likeness of the blade grind, go to Bob's book on page 50 / Photo 43 (Early 40's group of knives) third from the bottom!

As with the Zacharias fighter that morphed into the #1, so the early Commando morphed into a later Commando. Although not many were made, he used hunting blades he had in stock, clearly stated, to make them. That holds true with the stag Commando. He had it in stock ant threw it together as a fighter. I know of only two that have the center hump in the blade, on is mine the other is Clinton's. These knives are unique forgings, not a stock Hunter modified into a fighter. The other few out there are typical field knife grinds. One major difference though is the stag Commando has no finger relief on the top. Only one I have seen like that and not set up necessarily for edge up fighting, Bo's preferred style. You will also note it has a right hand sheath.

I also stated previously I do not know how to post photos here


Another problem I have is that the spacer set on the knife in question matches no other knives post the first half of '42!. It does, however match up pretty closely with knives from 1939-1941.

You are wrong. I clearly stated Tune's spacer stack is almost exact. Plus, with only 28 knives made from June to Jan, how many do you think you are going to see? You think he made the Zach in June 42 and there was a wholesale switch in his style?!? Like, "oh, I better change spacers now that I made a couple of fighting knives. I need to do this so nerd collectors 70 years from now will know"


The last and biggest problem I have with your assessment is the sheath":


If there is any doubt about it, the sheath is the clincher! However, earlier in this thread you pass it off when you say "I know the style of sheath would make us question the date, but that was the style Moore made for that blade grind, so it would stand to reason he would continue with that pattern in the short term". Would stand to who's reason, Joe? I think yours and yours alone. Saying this sheath was made after (1) The Zacharias sheath in Bob's book and (2) Tune's sheath because of the blade grind difference is stretching the facts to their breaking point.

Not in the least. It is apparent that the style of sheath is what Moore had made for that blade style. He had never made a sheath like Tune's until the Zach, and even that was not like Tune's. It was hand "stitched" I guess you would call it, but l think there is a name for it. It had leather stripping like a pair of Indian moccasins would have. That being said, a new style wasn't warranted for a his hunter blade double hilt or not. IT FIT!!

That brings me to to the hilt. That hit on the stag Commando is most definitely not his first fighter hilt, and looks nothing like his early hunter hilts. As a contrast, Scagel fighter hilts maintained the "oval" look, Bo's did not. They were a total departure from that style

Want to mention the "Zach sheath" as you call it pictured in Gaddis is typical of what the Moore fighter sheath was. I have 6 or 7 I think sitting in my sheath box. So it isn't an exciting find Ron, it was a sheath he made to accommodate a new blade grind. Pretty simple stuff.


The sheath to this knife is virtually identical to the sheaths made for earlier ('40 and '41) era knives like mine and Chuck's:

Uhhh, not the one below. That is a fold over stitched on one side.



Similar, but still no biggie. That knife could have been made in later '42 or maybe later '41, or maybe later '40. No way to tell 100%. I would consider though that it doesn't have a stepped choil, which could indicate a bit later in the range.



I've made a case that the grind, the spacer stack and the sheath are earlier than the Zacharias and I have offered hard facts.

Not facts Ron, opinion.

In this thread you blame me for "The fracture in the Randall knife community" like you were not a contributor! I love Randall knives and everything associated with them to include their history, and when I see actual facts distorted and twisted to be later assimilated into Randall history, I get serious about protecting the brand. Like the early 60's Heiser sheaths. Feel free to re-write Randall history, Joe. But know that it won't go unchallenged.

Ron
No, I did not blame you specifically Ron, it was general statement about the attitude(s) within the collecting community. For example, "Like the early 60's Heiser sheaths". What about them? Is there something that wasn't covered? Did you want to add to that discussion?

It seems there is allot of petty jealousy I suppose, I don't know what else it is. If someone offers another take on the fracture within the community, the floor is yours. All I know is, I came here with good intentions, thought I could add to the 14 thread. No problem there. This thread, because you don't like what is being said, by me, you attack, basically insult me as though I am being disingenuous, am a complete idiot, or out right lying. Now that you have brought is up, the problem is with you Ron. It doesn't happen on the other forum. Even get along with Jack for the most part until you chime in and I get the feeling he is savvy enough to try and stay out of it. I don't know why nor really care what has gone on with you to make you so angry, but your responses have been in very poor taste.

Last edited by crutchtip; 07-18-2017 at 09:49 PM.
Reply With Quote