Early RMK sheath Identification

[samg]

Hello everyone
Name is Sam Granade. I have been involved with Randall knives for about 20 years.
My favorite era is WW2 and specifically Hunters.

A few years ago I began to follow the Heiser vs Johnson debate that dealt with trying to determine if there was a discernable difference between RMK stamped sheaths, and trying to determine who made them, Heiser or Johnson.

Jacks observations here really made a lot of sense to me. Very logical, well thought out observations. Then when the ebay sample sheaths appeared, I began digging on my own.

I have been in email communications with Ron Mathews for years because like him, I have a keen interest in early Hunters.
Ron has been a wealth of information for me, always going out of his way to encourage me and teach me, about these Hunters.
Ron, always making observations to me, pointed out that the number 3 stamp on his Heiser stamped Hunter sheaths were all flat across the top. That it differed from Johnson baby dot sheaths because the number 3 on them are rounded on the top.

So with this difference pointed out to me about the number style difference, I wanted to go deeper to see where it would lead. So I began to look at all the pictures of the back of sheaths that I could find, and kept track of them in a logical organized way. I kept the tally according to the orientation of the stamp on the sheath. Logical and easy.
When I exhausted my resources, I found a distinct, orderly pattern that to this point, I have found a few sheath models to be exceptions, because of fit/ aesthetics. More on that in a minute. There could be some abberations, some examples exist.That is the reason for this thread.

After exhausting my resources as of now, here are my observations:

Concerning observations of early RMK stamped sheaths in the approx years 1960-1982

1) West facing RMK stamped sheaths display old style serif number stamps as seen on Heiser sheaths with the Heiser logo stamp.**** See below.

2) Horizontal facing RMK stamped sheaths display old style serif number stamps as seen on Heiser sheaths with the Heiser logo stamp.**** See below.

3) East facing RMK stamped sheaths display new style non serif number stamps, as seen on Johnson baby dot sheaths.

***** Observed exceptions are:
1) sheaths that display stamps on the front of the sheath.
2) sheaths that because of short/squat belt loops as seen on JRB 12-11, appear to be turned horizontally as a result of fit or esthetics.
3) ocassional sheaths that display variations of the number stamps.
My observations have been very few of these number stamp variations.

If any of you have sheaths that definitely challenge these observations please post them. If you do not have any that challenge this observation, let us know that too.

I felt that Jack did a great job of research on the stamp orientation - snap location connection.
Perhaps this is one more step in being able to identify the difference between early RMK Heiser made and Johnson made sheaths.

Thanks for the opportunity to open this thread to discussion.

Sam Granade

[Jacknola]

Sam, this is great stuff and an example of what can be discovered by approaching a subject logically and systematically. This is a further build on the sensible division of the brown button sheaths into Heiser, Heiser-made-Randall (I rather like the designation " Heiser-Keyston Brothers-Lichtenberger-Ferguson Co." or "H-K-L") and Johnson.

In my opinion, the study of fonts on sheaths (and knife blades as well) has a lot more that can be done and Sam has shown this. There are other numbers whose fonts are probably different as well. But I think the basic thesis has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the "west stamps" are Heiser (H-K-L)-made, "east stamps" are Johnson-made.

Sam, your hypothesis looks generally good, but I've found some exceptions. We should probably expect exceptions and acknowledge that they just raise some interesting questions, which have logical answers.

Exception to Sam's thesis: Some Heiser sheaths that are stamped "over/under," (model number on top of the Heiser logo, length number below Heiser logo), seem to have a rounded "3" font. Yet the flat-top "3" is indeed omni-present on the H-K-L sheaths, also predominant on other Heiser-logo sheaths of the late 1950s. Here are two examples of the Heiser stamp with rounded "3":

Late 1950?s model 3, Heiser sheath, rounded "3"





Gary Clinton group of knives? note third knife from left, Heiser-stamp with over/under numbers, rounded font on the ?3?.





Just for contrast, here is a Heiser with flat-topped "3"... this seems to me to be more common than the rounded 3 on Heiser stamped sheaths, and it transitions exactly into the numbers on all the horizontal and west-stamped H-K-L sheaths, and I post three of those so everyone knows what Sam is referring to



To see how exactly the fonts on the Heiser-stamped sheath above tracks the subsequent H-K-L fonts, here are three such. First is probably 1960 brown button.



Next is Gary Clinton's documented 8/1960 knife.



Finally is a brown button Thorpe sheath.



Following Sam's lead, I did a hasty look. I think Sam is right that Johnson's rounded font ?3? was consistently different from that on the H-K-L sheaths and most of the later Heiser-stamped sheaths. Most or all of those seem to have the flat-topped "3." I haven't found any Johnson sheaths with the flat-topped "3," all seem to have the curved 3 that seems larger than the above illustrated Heiser curvey 3.

So... what about those Heiser stamped curvey 3s? Parhaps they are an earlier '50s font version (?). Lots of interesting comparisons to do here. But even with a quick look, I found about a dozen seeminly later Heiser-stamped sheaths with the flat-topped 3.

In passing I'll repeat that in my opinion when Johnson first made sheaths using brown buttons, he did not stamp his sheaths with model and length numbers. He probably began adding model and length numbers shortly after the introduction of the baby-dot snaps.

There are a couple of other things about sheaths I'll mention for people to look into.

(1) There was one person making Johnson sheaths whose work featured a meticulous double line of stitching into the heart of the butterfly. This is beautiful work that was noticably different from most Johnson sheaths, and that signature stitching continued to be seen occasionally on sheaths into the mid-1970s. MOre typically, Johnson sheath stitching had a single line that continued deep into the butterfly, and usually the butterfly curves were less meticulous, and sometimes rather haphazard. I wonder if the double line sewing was done by Mr. Johnson (sr.) himself, or possibly his wife (?).

Example 1 - double line butterfly stitching, baby-dot, no model numbers.



More common Johnson "butterfly" stitching.



(2) Model "B" sheaths (Heiser, H-K-L, Johnson) and later Johnson-made riveted Model-"Cs" were stamped on the front of the sheath rather than the back. I've looked at this periodically and it seems that the stamp orientation H-K-L vs Johnson is reversed from that seen on rear-stamped sheaths... H-K-L stamp more usually orients toward the "east" and Johnson toward the "west." In comparison, the Heiser stamps on B sheaths seem to have been mostly oriented toward "east," but not always... there are more than a few Heiser stamps on "B" sheaths that are "west" oriented, and occasional H-K-L-Randall stamps are turned and oriented "east."

It is something to be aware of? and probably is related to the steps used to make the sheaths. I speculate that the move of the stamp to the front of the riveted Model C sheaths was caused by the rough-back construction of those Johnson sheaths?the logo stamp applied to the back of the rough-back pebbly surface was not reliably or deeply imprinted.

Sam, thanks for your efforts and cataloguing. I?m glad you posted here and hope you continue to look into this. It would be interesting to examine the fonts of other numbers, such as "1" and "7" etc. If we had a huge chronologic data base no telling what we could learn.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS: On another forum, there was a rather disorganized attempt to differentiate Johnson vs Heiser vs H-K-L sheaths using some ad hoc, "trust me," hodge-podge of mixed metaphors. Those attempts were characterized by a lack of systemic or chronologic backup (but with some good reference data). In my opinion, the "methodology" used was not very good (OK, it was very bad) ... and some "factual" examples were erroneous, confusing, and/or had warped commentary and data falsehoods.

Unfortunately, some find it difficult to engage in a proper discussion, or accept anyone elses opinion that redefines the old unsupportable status quo, regardless of the weight of evidence. That is one reason I have given up posting there. The other reason is .... something else. Oh well...

Fortunately this site seems to be more open and less intrenched. Thanks to the mods...

[samg]

Jacknola
Thanks for your well thought out and presented observations.
In any endeavor of discovering the facts about anything, it has to be done in an unbiased way, so that no matter where the evidence leads, it is a place where it can be accepted, because of the evidence.
I do know that this early RMK sheath debate has been going on for a long while, and without the smoking gun evidence that Heiser had a stamp, then there are some who will not accept it, no matter how compelling the evidence. I understand that too, because the claim that Heiser did not possess a stamp, comes from the source, so I completely understand that position. But with the same source claiming that Johnson was not found till 1962, we have a conflict, obviously.


Speaking of smoking gun, when I got involved in this debate, I started doing my own sleuthing, and I have found a very interesting little bit of info that should perk everyone's ears up...unless this is general knowledge.
I have found a person who was among Heisers last employees when they closed in 1980. Hold on fellas....This person bought all of the stamps, dies, and equipment that Heiser owned going way back.
We had an interesting conversation about Randall knives, I told him what our investigation was about, and as he likes Randall's too, it piqued his interest.
I asked him if Heiser, and he prefers for himself the company to be referred to as Heiser, though it had been bought, it still retained Heiser in its name. Just his preference. I guess kind of like Daimler- Mercedes, I still refer to them as Mercedes. Just old school I guess. Plus with Heisers historical relavence to American History, I will refer to them as Heiser.
When I asked him if Heiser retained stamps that were used for other companies, or were they sent back to the other companies when that business relationship was ended, he said that he was not sure. He bought all this equipment and stamps and dies years ago, and there are many boxes that he has still in storage that he hasn't gotten into, but because of my inquiry, he said that he may look into it.
He was a saddle maker so he isn't too knowledable about the knife sheath stuff, but he does have some of those too. At this point he doesn't know if he has Randall sheath dies or not. I will check in with him from time to time, and he told me that if he found anything, he would call me.

Moving forward, if you will, I would like to try and establish some guidelines that I feel are unbiased, that can help us keep focused on the observations and not apply the term fact, till its debated and verified or debunked.
It will also prevent arguments. Stick with point-counterpoint. This research is not about ego, who is right or wrong, its about establishing a Randall history for these RMK sheaths. Not based on opinion, but on fact.

Here is my guideline. Feel free to add or alter, but its important to keep it simple and unbiased.

1) If an opinion can be backed with substantial evidence ( as done with the stamp orientation- number style stamp evidence) without substantial evidence that refutes it, it becomes fact until evidence to the contrary is uncovered.

2). If an opinion can be refuted by substantial evidence, it can't be held as fact, only opinion. I say this because no matter how much evidence is provided, ego may get into the way.

3) For an opinion to be held as fact, evidence must be presented that can be substantiated without significant opposing evidence.( Such as Heiser using serif number stamps, or Johnson using non serif number stamps.)

4) Observations that are used to distinguish the two sheath makers can't be considered fact if both makers display same characteristics .That stance only leads to personal argument, and it muddys the water.

This would eliminate claims of "vast experience" or"years of handling sheaths" from being able to be used as a crutch to fall back on.

This research should be done in the light of wanting to establish the truth, not to prove ones position.
Moving forward, I would greatly appreciate the contribution of everyone, so that if we can come to the point where the evidence trail, not the opinion trail, leads us closer to what really went on in those early RMK years. It may lead right back to the undetermined place, but a lot of groundwork or foundation has been laid. Let's walk on it and see where it leads.
And please....no egos need to post here. No name calling, insinuations, etc. Stick to the points. If an observation is made, reply to that observation, keep it clean and concise. If someone tries to divert the conversation, hopefully a moderator will remove it.

Thanks again Jack for your response and body of work that you presented. I believe that my observation of number stamp styles just may be a link that joins it all together. But that is an opinion at this point, not a fact.
I started a thread on another forum that was basically 3 pages of my observations with the help of one insightful member that helped. But an open challenge to find evidence that debunked my observations. None so far, so you know how that is, no answer is a screaming answer. With all the talented collectors with the experience and pertinent sheaths, with no contradictory evidence to debunk it, I feel at this point that I am onto something. Time will tell. These number stamp observations have only been an observation, not positioned as truth. I have absolutely no ego or motives other than trying to logically get to the bottom of it.

Thanks

Sam Granade

[Moosehead]

Hi Sam!

Welcome to the Knife Network!

I look forward to your participation and am sure you will find that folks here are friendly, open minded and respectful of freedom of expression.

Cheers!

David

[samg]

Thanks for the welcome David, I look forward to it. Hopefully it will bring out some participation. Its vital.

Sam

[Jacknola]

Sam that is a very solid treatise. I investigate significant accidents in the offshore oil industry for Uncle Sam. I also write up those investigation findings for the US Government. So, I understand levels of confidence in "findings." (Yes... I was involved in the Deepwater Horizon-Macondo investigation.)

We use a range of terms. Proved (90 percent sure), probable (60-90 percent surety), and possible (10-50 percent surety). The reason for this is that the truth often cannot be proved to a criminal legal requirement, "beyond reasonable doubt." But it CAN often be proved to a tort level of legality, which is "preponderance of evidence." Yet many of the root causes of an accident can only be determined from application of the principles of pre-determinism, and logic... i.e. "possible."

If one reviews our (Ron and me) development of this thesis in the "Magic Randall" line, you will see that we did not claim "fact" until there was only one reasonable conclusion. There has been no objective rebuttal of that conclusion, only further tightening of the logic and proof as others such as Gary Clinton provide the data from their extensive collections.

I am amazed at your Heiser contact and hope he has some Randall stamps. But even if he doesn't, in truth there is no record of Mr. Johnson being provided a Randall stamp either, yet he obviously had one. And, there is no record or even a reasonable way for the shop to have stamped those sheaths "Randall." But the real kicker is that there is zero evidence that a "Randall Stamp" on a sheath indicates it was made by Johnson. On the contrary, to believe that would require Johnson making LOTS of sheaths in 1960... which is ridiculous.

Thanks again for your input. And rest assured, I'm looking for truth and don't care who solves a mystery. Regards. Jack

[samg]

Jack, the range of terms you mention is very logical to me, without absolute proof. Though I have to admit, the ebay sample sheaths was pretty close to that absolute proof.
I really appreciate the work that you and Ron put into this stamp orientation, snap location observation. And while there is much to be said for handling sheaths to make observations, you don't have to have them in hand to see the stamps and numbers.
Its late here and I have work in the morning, but I will put together some ideas for you tomorrow.
I can't emphasize enough how important it is for everyone reading this thread, lend your voice and opinion, no matter what it is, and we will sift through it.
I think much has been done to establish a reasonable position that these early RMK stamped sheaths in horizontal and west facing orientation were made by Heiser. So let's explore the connection with the serif numbers and see if there is any conflicting evidence.
I Thank Ron Mathews for putting me on the trail of these number styles. Through his observations, I have learned to look closely at these sheaths.

Sam Granade

[Jacknola]

This is cool stuff. thank you for independently resurrecting this Sam.

Furthermore, about "stamps," just wait until people begin to DEEPLY and systematically overlay and compare the Randall-made blade stamps used in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s (though I've covered the basics there). I think some truths could come out that might blow certain people's minds.

Regards

[samg]

What is encouraging about it Jack, is that the findings were totally independent, from completely different sources, working on different characteristics, but they fit together like a glove!

*** We have definitely established this connection of:
Heiser RMK= West, Horizontal stamped sheaths
Johnson RMK= East stamped sheaths

***Let me make myself perfectly clear. I make no claims that these findings in this project are truth. It is too early. As in any honest investigation, the facts will tell us.

With the stamp orientation - number stamp style being established, how about we also explore the differences of the 2 sheath makers, based on viewing the sheaths themselves, without considering the stamps.

Let's consider these observations one by one.
It has been observed that Heiser and Johnson made sheaths can be descerned by certain characteristics.

1) Thickness of leather. Johnson it has been suggested, used thicker leather.
I put this theory to the test, and asked a saddle maker in Colorado about this, and his reply was that:

1) Bulls/cows from Florida come mainly from Bhrama stock, and
2) Bulls/cows from Colorado come mainly from European stock.
3) Bhrama/Florida cattle has thinner hide
4) European/ Colorado has thicker hide.

Also that leather shops purchase their hides from different places around the country.

So if Bhrama/Florida hide is thinner, how could Johnson made sheaths be consistently thicker than Heisers?
Let's start with this claim. What do you think?

Thanks

Sam G

[samg]

Also, let's accumulate as many perceived differences in these sheaths that are attributed to a specific maker. Anything that may be relavent.
Thanks, Sam G

[Jacknola]

Originally Posted by samg

Let's consider these observations one by one.
It has been observed that Heiser and Johnson made sheaths can be descerned by certain characteristics.

1) Thickness of leather. Johnson it has been suggested, used thicker leather.
I put this theory to the test, and asked a saddle maker in Colorado about this, and his reply was that:

1) Bulls/cows from Florida come mainly from Bhrama stock, and
2) Bulls/cows from Colorado come mainly from European stock.
3) Bhrama/Florida cattle has thinner hide
4) European/ Colorado has thicker hide.

Also that leather shops purchase their hides from different places around the country.

So if Bhrama/Florida hide is thinner, how could Johnson made sheaths be consistently thicker than Heisers?
Let's start with this claim. What do you think?

Thanks

Sam G

Sam in my opinion this is an example of a diversion dead end. Someone thought they might have seen some characteristic and then stated something that everyone thought sounded profound and everyone repeated it to each other until it became accepted by all.

But, before we expend the effort to chase this rabbit, let's ask:

1. Where is the documentation of this thesis?

2. Where are all the pictures, lists of sheaths examined, micrometer measurements of the leather?

3. Who did this study and how did they conclude that raw leather hides provided to different manufacturers are of different thicknesses? I would think that a leather-hide order specifying... say ... 1/4-inch thick ... would be 1/4-inch thick in both Colorado and Florida. So... how did Heiser and Johnson order their raw materials?

4. Big question - if there was a "study," did it put the H-L-K Heiser-Randall sheaths into the "Johnson-made" or "Heiser-made" category?

5. What is the proven normal range of variables, thickness, etc., within a sheath manufacturer? We know from observation that stitching fine-ness, color of thread, etc. varies widely within both manufactures. So why do we expect measurable uniformity differences in the leather used for thousands of sheaths?

Before we expend any time on this I would like to see some documentated thesis. Does whoever postulated this know anything about leather, how it is acquired, treated, sold, and then cut for sheaths? In other words, lets let someone show that their is a measurable difference in the leather.

This applies to most of the other so-called identifying attributes were posted without any thesis... They just are in the catagory of "Randall-stamp = Johnson sheath" fable in my opinion.

We have quite a number of measurable characteristic differences. No need to pursue someone's imaginative posturings unless they do the spade work. Regards, Jack

[Jacknola]

I'm probably going to limit my research in this "font-ology" line because (1) we cannot shed more light on the Johnson brown button sheaths because Johnson did not stamp his brown buttons sheaths with model or length numbers. (2) to connect the Heiser-H-K-L sheath fonts directly to those used on Heiser-logo sheaths will require a pretty deep knowledge of Heiser-ology... and that dictates extensive research into a Randall time period that is not my primary interest... the 1950s.

That said, here is some interesting number font data that supports the FACT that the Hesier/H-K-L sheaths were not made by Johnson.

First are a few examples of the font used by Johnson on his sheaths. This font was apparently unchanged from earliest use in about early 1963 at least into the 1970s. I've only included a few examples because it got boring...they all were alike. Unlike Sam, I focused on the "seven" not the "three" because the "7" is a more commonly found number. Note the font of these Johnsons.



Now let's look at the font used on Heiser/H-K-L sheaths with both horizontal and west facing Randall stamps. I looked at a lot of these sheaths and they all had this font... Again focus on the seven, but of course you can also look at the "four."



It is pretty obvious that the fonts used on the Heiser/H-K-L sheaths is different from that used by Johnson... and that holds for all the numbers, not just 7s and 3.s Is this proof that Johnson was not the maker of those H-K-L sheats? No, but it is a strong indicator, because now in order for Johnson to have made those sheaths he would have to have done all of the following:

He would have had to have begun making a lot of sheaths in 1959-60; used the west and horizontal stamps with a particular number-font; constructed his sheaths with the center placed keeper; used stiching on the butterfly on the back of the sheath that looked exactly like that used on Heiser-stamped; made a bunch of canteen snap sheaths; etc....

AND then SUDDENLY sometime in late-1962 he would have had to have changed everything. He started not using model numbers and then when he resumed adding them, he changed the font from what he had previously used; he changed the keeper strap location; changed the orientation of the stamp on the back of the sheath; suddenly changed the stiching to run deep into the butterfly; introduced the large tack rivet instead of the canteen snap, etc.

The obvious difference in the fonts of ALL the numbers used on Heiser/H-K-L and those used later by Johnson is just additional data saying that it would be highly unlikely for Johnson to have made those Heiser/H-K-L sheaths... we already had concluded that, this just adds some more kindling to the fire

Now, are the numbers used on the Heiser/H-K-L sheaths the same as those used on the Heiser-stamped sheaths that immediately proceeded them? Well that is another story because there were a LOT of different fonts and even sizes of numbers used on Heiser-stamped sheaths. Take a look at this hodge podge of numbers used on Heiser stamped sheaths.



In order to know if the Heiser/H-K-L sheaths used the same fonts as the late 1950s Heisers, one would have to know what the time period was when Heiser used each of diverse group of fonts ... in other words, you would have to be something of an expert on the marking of Heiser sheaths. Perhaps there is a body of knowledge that can ID the time period of those sheaths by the difference in their number sizes and fonts. I just don't know much about Heiser stamps.

However even without direct knowledge, we can make some good deductions based on probability. It appears that the most common font number stamp on Heisers is shown below top, yellow circles, Those sevens seem to be a dead ringer for the fonts used by Heiser/H-K-L. Case closed? well, trouble ... the fonts of the numbers on the sheath at bottom right seem match no other Heiser sheath I've seen. Those fonts are different from the most common Heiser ones, and they seem to be close to the fonts used by Johnson. Confusing?



But here is another method. Gary Clinton posted these sheaths which we now know is a grouping of Heiser/H-K-L sheaths with a couple of Heiser sheaths mixed in. Note the tiny numbers, round "3" etc., on the second right Heiser... But more importantly, notice the fonts and numbers on the Heiser second left and compare those to the Heiser/H-K-Ls in the group. The font on that Heiser seems to exactly match the fonts on the H-K-L sheaths.



Conclusion: Using font-ology, we cannot say precisely that there a direct connection between Heiser-stamped sheaths and the Heiser/H-K-L sheaths because we (read "I") don't know enough about the time period and way Heiser used the many different stamp fonts that we find. However, we can say that the model number stamps on the Heiser-H-K-L sheaths are completely different from those used by Johnson when he began stamping his sheaths with those numbers.

AND... we have already listed a great many other obvious characteristics that Heiser and Heiser-H-K-L sheaths have in common... These are more than enough to say with confidence that the Heiser/H-K-Ls were indeed made by Heiser.

[samg]

Thanks Jack for putting this "fontology" together in such an organized, easy way to understand. Great job with the pictures and illustrations!

Yes, all the photos that I have sifted through, the numbers 7,3,2, and especially 1 have held my attention.

The number 1 stamp has been interesting because both Heiser-HKL and Johnson number 1 stamp exhibit a serif. Heiser-HKL number 1 serif angles down, while the Johnson 1 serif is a right angle, straight out.

Originally Posted by jacknola

numbers on the sheath at bottom right seem match no other Heiser sheath I've seen. Those fonts are different from the most common Heiser ones, and they seem to be close to the fonts used by Johnson. Confusing?

That Heiser with the non serif number stamp is interesting. We do know however that it is a Heiser because of the Heiser logo. This would only lend to a discussion that Heiser-HKL may have made many of the east facing RMK stamped sheaths as well. We know that didn't happen.

Jack, I agree with

Originally Posted by jacknola

in order for Johnson to have made those sheaths he would have to have done all of the following:

Started making a lot of sheaths in 1959-60; used the west and horizontal stamps with a particular number font; consturcted his sheaths with the center placed keeper; used a distinctive stiching into the butterfly on the back of the sheath; made a bunch of canteen snap sheaths; etc....

AND then SUDDENLY he had to have changed everything. He begain not using model numbers and then when he resumed adding them, he changed the font from what he had previously used; he changed the keeper strap location; changed the orientation of the stamp on the back of the sheath; suddenly introduced the tack rivet instead of the canteen snap, etc.

I see that as an unnatural progression also, and to claim that it is the way Johnson evolved, to the eventually east facing stamp and non serif number stamps? Changing number stamp styles? Logic?

A simple, easy way to understand it for myself, based on evidence thus far is that:

Heiser and Heiser-HKL used serif number stamps, Johnson used non serif number stamps.
We have provenance with knife/sheath marriages in 1960 (pre-Johnson) that display horizontal and west facing RMK stamps with serif numbers. Evidence points strongly to Heiser-HKL made.

The case is not closed, the research goes on, but new evidence may be hard to come by, especially to debunk the observations, but I will be searching for the knife sheaths that fit our observations, and in all fairness, if there are non serif sheaths that are documented 1960, I would love to see them too.

Jack, thanks again for the clear, concise observations that you are adding to this thread.

Sam

[samg]

I haven't revisited this sheath topic Heiser vs Johnson made in quite some time, as it has become part of my knowledge that Heiser did indeed possess a RMK stamp, based on the overwhelming evidence provided in the last couple years, provided thru amazing research done primarily by Jacknola.
The subject came back to mind for me this week in a tenite thread when Jacknola stated:

Originally Posted by Jacknola

I do not consider myself an expert, and my knowledge of this topic is purely secondary and drawn from previous publications by other people. As we have discovered, many of the tenants held by the so-called "expert" community about knives from this era have been proved wrong, from sheath manufacture markings and attribution, to blade stamps, etc.

I really admire the lack of ego on his part as he states clearly not to be an expert. But investigation is his business, and as we have discovered, he is good at it.

Well, tonight, in part based on the fact that I just recently acquired an early Smithsonian in a Heiser sheath, I googled "vintage randall smithsonian knife heiser sheath" and the very first result that popped up was this one by bp-outdoors. Scroll down halfway on the page where you have a group of brown button Heiser sheaths. The 12-11 has a RMK stamp.

It's good to see that the previously accepted theory that Heiser didn't have a RMK stamp has been proved wrong with good research, and now that it is relatively easy to tell them apart, we are seeing the results of a lot of good research come to light.

Regards, Samg

http://www.bp-outdoors.com/randall_knives.html



Brown button Heiser sheaths

[samg]

I kind of eluded to this in Jack's thread "Dating a Randall Bowie" with my last post about an early 60's 12-9 Sportsman's Bowie. But this part of the conversation has to do more specifically with the sheath, which belongs on this thread. It's good to revive old threads from time to time.

The sheath I'm referring to is Brown Button sheath with a west facing RMK stamp.

This sheath to me, seems to be a hybrid. Looking at the front, it has the stone pocket flap (slightly rounded)of a Heiser/HKL, but a beveled edge to the sheath, like a Johnson.

Then you flip it over, it has a vertical RMK west facing stamp (Heiser/HKL) but the sewing of the butterfly with the 2 center stitch lines is more Johnson



In the following photo, on the left you have an early Heiser/HKL sheath, center, an early Johnson baby dot sheath, on the right the subject sheath.

Obviously different model sheaths, Note how similar the 2 outside sheaths are. Same shape on the stone flap end. Difference in the 2 is the edge. The left is tooled, the right is beveled. The center sheath is obvious Johnson. Note the pointed stone flap end, and beveled sheath edge.



In the following photo, on the back, note the left and right sheath, west facing stamp, the left has serif style model/blade numbers, the right does not have numbers.
The center sheath, Johnson baby dot with east facing RMK stamp, very characteristic of Johnson's sheaths.
Though the left and right sheaths are more similar in appearance, note the butterfly in all 3. The center and the right side are more similar.



The left and center sheaths in the above photos are very different in the described aspects, but the sheath on the right has attributes of both.
I would estimate that all 3 sheathes were made within 2 years of each other.

I think there are a few scenarios to be considered in who constructed this subject sheath.

1) because of the west facing stamp, it was made by Heiser/HKL and they just uncharacteristically beveled the edge and left off the number stamps.

2) the stitch count on the subject sheath is different too. So either HKL or Johnson used a different machine.

3) Johnson early on received unfinished/ unsewn sheaths from Heiser/HKL and finished them up to include beveling the edge and not using number stamps, which we see in his early Baby dot sheaths.

4) Johnson completely made this sheath, and within a year changed his dies, reoriented his stamp, reshaped the stone flap.

5) In Randall's search for a local sheath maker, someone we don't know about made it.

I think probably the 3rd or 5th scenario is the correct one. We will never know for sure, we can only speculate, but as familiar as we all are with the styles of both Heiser and Johnson over the years, this sheath is an odd ball.
If any of you have similar sheaths, please post them.

Regards, Sam