Old 100 Series Identification?

bertl

bertl

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
2,225
The knife in the photos just sold on the internet for quite a bit (I didn't end up with it.). The seller described it as a late Group 1 or early Group 2 with a black masonite handle. Based on the sheath, that's probably a good description, but I don't think it fits for the knife. The tang stamp would be more or less correct, but the guard and pommel spacers put the knife at a much later time. I wonder if the handle is actually ebony, or even phenolic, instead of masonite (I don't think you can tell from the photos.)

Please comment.

Bert
s-l1600 (1).jpg s-l16001.jpg s-l16004.jpg
 
Well, I'm the fool with his money parted. I gave this knife a lot of thought and had quite a discussion with Matt Jannusch about it. My working theory/belief is that it is an early model 104 blade that was rehandled at the factory, hence a 62/63 style phenolic handle with fiber spacers. The handle is definitely not Masonite. Matt did send me some pictures of an early Masonite handled knife and the stacked washer characteristic is clearly discernible. Additionally, Matt did get some more pictures from the seller of the butt but (double but) still could not tell if it was a barrel nut. The knife surely has anachronistic features, the blade is clearly prefactory, also the handle and sheath are clearly not of the same vintage... by about 20 years. Can't wait to fondle it. /Roger
 
Last edited:
Good for you Roger. I was tempted to keep bidding just to satisfy my curiosity, but I'm glad you got it. I pretty much agree with your assessment.
Is that knife the reason you asked about early 100s in a thread last week?

Bert
 
Smart fool, I'd say.

That knife is worth having. Fascinating find.

The Masonite handles were never shaped like that, at least I've never seen one.

An excellent acquisition!
 
Hey, Just like history, the farther you go back the fuzzier things become. I am starting to experience that more and more.
That early hand made stuff is a detectives nightmare. 300
 
Well I didn't bid on it for the reasons mentioned above but really thought hard about it. Even if it is phenolic I think it is a great knife for the price you got it for Roger. It will be a very interesting addition
for the collection.
 
DeSotoSky said:
Well, I'm the fool with his money parted. I gave this knife a lot of thought and had quite a discussion with Matt Jannusch about it. My working theory/belief is that it is an early model 104 blade that was rehandled at the factory, hence a 62/63 style phenolic handle with fiber spacers. The handle is definitely not Masonite. Matt did send me some pictures of an early Masonite handled knife and the stacked washer characteristic is clearly discernible. Additionally, Matt did get some more pictures from the seller of the butt but (double but) still could not tell if it was a barrel nut. The knife surely has anachronistic features, the blade is clearly prefactory, also the handle and sheath are clearly not of the same vintage... by about 20 years. Can't wait to fondle it. /Roger
Click to expand...

What model number is this knife?
 
Reread the 3rd sentence of my post. Early pre factory model numbers are not always the same.
 
DeSotoSky said:
Reread the 3rd sentence of my post. Early pre factory model numbers are not always the same.
Click to expand...

I read that but it seemed as though you weren't sure of that model number.I tried to reference that model in my only book on Buck knives but I wasn't successful in finding it.

Thanks.
 
Here is speculation that we won't be able to confirm. I'll bet that the original handle was masonite, not lucite. If the knife was sent in to be re-handled, it's probably because the masonite deteriorated, possibly because of moisture. I think the lucite is more durable.

Bert
 
I don't think this knife is a group 1 or 2 based solely on the blade stamp. Masonite was only used on group one knives and for a very short time. My theory is it was a one off blade.
There are several things that don't make sense.
1. The blade is stamped with a one strike stamp.
2. It's stamped with a blade stamp much newer than what's claimed
3. It has no fuller
4. The pommel is not pinned or made with a barrel nut construction.

I think it's an early 50 made one off blade, rehandled in the mid 60s. I'll try to post pictures of blade stamps of group 1 knives for comparison.
 
here are group 1 blade stamps, and its obvious the one on the knife is not a group 1


its obvious that the blade stamp in question isnt a group 1 knife, and Masonite was only used in group 1 knives for a very short time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top