Camillus Tang Stamps

[tjmurphy]

Looking at this image of Camillus tang stamps and dates, what is your opinion as to the correctness of the dates provided? Especially looking at the Camillus short line (1946-50) and the Camillus No Line (1946-56). It would seem that following a pattern that these two stamps are reversed as far as dating and even as far as date ranges. It would seem to me that the no line stamp would be earlier than the short line stamp and that the date ranges would be 1946-50 for the no line and probably 1950-60? for the short line.

Anyone have an opinion?

[orvet]

I agree TJ. It would only be logical to assume that the no line tang stamp preceded the short line tang stamp. However, knife companies do not always do things logically!

I believe the source of the dating of the two tang stamps is John Goins’ book "The Encyclopedia of Cutlery Markings." In many areas of life I have observed the truth that anyone who writes a book is assumed to be an expert on a given subject. I think that holds true in this case. John Goins was however in deed an expert on cutlery markings, however no person is perfect. I don't wish in any way to denigrate Mr. Goins efforts, but one must realize the book he wrote was a monumental undertaking. It would be difficult for anyone to know all of the marking of just the American made knives, let alone all of the imports.

I spent about three years or more researching Schrade catalogs before posting the list of Schrade knives in the research section of AAPK. As someone who has done cutlery research I know how difficult it is to be accurate. There are several inaccuracies and omissions in my list. If John Goins were around today, I'm sure he would amend his book in a number of areas.

As we have discussed before, and as Tom Williams has pointed out, Camillus is one of the more difficult companies to date by tang stamps. And the catalogs are no help at all.

In this picture you can see a short line tang stamp in this artwork from the 1948 Camillus catalog.

1948 catalog drawing.JPG (82.9 KiB) Viewed 6978 times

Now this picture, also taken from a Camillus catalog shows no line in the tang stamp. This picture came from the 1965 Camillus catalog.

1965 Catalog drawing.JPG (33.15 KiB) Viewed 6978 times

For this reason I must be content at this point in time not to worry about precise dating to Camillus tang stamps. Someday, perhaps after a few years of research, we will be able to write an approximate guide for dating Camillus knives by their tang stamp, but that day has not yet arrived IMO!

[tjmurphy]

I agree that exact dating is not possible, unless the blades are date coded like the post 1969 CASE, however, date ranges should be possible. I still kinda feel the no line and short line stamps are switched, date range-wise. Oh well, in a hundred years who's going to care anyway, besided ME

[orvet]

Tom Williams called me this afternoon. We had a nice chat on a variety of topics. I brought up this thread and Tom agreed that the short line stamp preceding the no line stamp really does not make sense.

He has discovered a couple more resources from the auction, including an engineering log book from about the end of WWII to about 1960. This book has all the specs for the knives made then, and he thought the tang stamps are included in the specs. He is going to make copies and send them to me. It probably won’t be a quick answer though because there is a lot of data to sift through. 15 years of production in a book 6 or 8 inches thick! Hopefully it will tell us when each tang stamp was used in that time period.

Tom agreed that we should be able (hopefully) to set time frames for the introduction of the new tang stamp. Obviously the stamp once produced could be used until worn out, but hopefully we can figure a rough time for the introduction of each new stamp, even if we can’t tell when they are last used!

[tjmurphy]

Excellent Dale, Excellent. Thanks a lot

[msteele6]

First off, the images of the tang stamps CANNOT be complete AND consistent. If you accept it uncritically you would have to come to the conclusion that Camillus didn't manufacture knives between 1956 and 1960 - there is no tang stamp shown for that date range.

I have always believed that Camillus used more than one tang stamping in the immediate post WWII period, the "no line" and the "short underline". I think that the simplest solution to the lack of a tang stamp listed for the 1956 - 1960 period is to treat the dates for the short line stamp as 1946 - 1960 NOT 1946 - 1950. I base this on the relative scarcity of the two stamps - the short line being much more common than the no line in my experience. Of course, an alternate solution would be to date the "long underline" stamp back to 1956 but that wouldn't explain the disparity in relative abundance between the short line and no line knives.

Of course, the simplest solution may not be the right one but from what I have seen of short underline knives the time frame seems about right.

JMO

PS. the reason I call the above hypothesis the "simplest" is that it only requires changing a single character in Goins' list. That is, the "5" in "1946 - 1950" would need to be changed to a "6" (i.e. "1946 - 1960"). To me this change requires only a simple misprint to account for all of the facts.

[tjmurphy]

Just looking at the long line stamps, it would appear that there are at least three variations of that stamp, not counting the over-under stamp. I can't put dates to the stamps but they may indicate different date ranges.

block letter.jpg (20.38 KiB) Viewed 6939 times

[msteele6]

So much for my "simplest" solution to Camillus stamp dating given above. I just found this offering on eBay. Unless the blade is a replacement I would say that this knife definitively dates the long underline stamp back to at least 1956.

[jerryd6818]

Good one Mark. Looks like we'll need to re-think that long line era. Thanks.

[Vit_213]

So much for my "simplest" solution to Camillus stamp dating given above. I just found this offering on eBay. Unless the blade is a replacement I would say that this knife definitively dates the long underline stamp back to at least 1956.

What number is this model?

[orvet]

Mark, if that jack does not have a model number, what is the length of the knife?

Thanks!

[msteele6]

Sorry fellows, I found this knife on eBay and "borrowed" the pictures. After the pattern number question was asked I went back and searched for the answer and couldn't find the knife again. Maybe the listing had expired and the knife is now in the hundreds of completed listings.

[jerryd6818]

It's a #15 pattern. (or at least that's what the seller says) http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Camillu ... 7675.l2557

And that's what looks like is stamped on the back of the blade.

[msteele6]

Nice job, Jerry.

[jerryd6818]

Hard to miss that Crown Royal sack the seller used as a background.

[Jamfish50]

Camillus.jpg

Looking at this image of Camillus tang stamps and dates, what is your opinion as to the correctness of the dates provided? Especially looking at the Camillus short line (1946-50) and the Camillus No Line (1946-56). It would seem that following a pattern that these two stamps are reversed as far as dating and even as far as date ranges. It would seem to me that the no line stamp would be earlier than the short line stamp and that the date ranges would be 1946-50 for the no line and probably 1950-60? for the short line.

Anyone have an opinion?

This is jamfish just put my cubscout cam on line yours tangs helped me so much.Its 60 to 76 tang......thanks again.

[Vit_213]

I have #16 Equal and Jack knife with no line tang stamp and bone handle.
In the 1946 catalog says "Handle - Bone Stag".
In the 1948 catalog says "Handle - Stagged".
So this knife was probably made ​​in 1946-47.

[tjmurphy]

I would say YES, but I think that the stamp dates are still a little bit up-in-the-air as to time-line. My guess is that the no line stamp follows the four-line stamp which ended in 1946

K-nice K-nife BTW

[carrmillus]

......goin's says 1946-1956 for the np line marking(master blade only)........... ................

[carrmillus]

....i can't type either!!!......that last post should read no-line instead of np-line!!!!........ ..........

[tjmurphy]

Well now, that changes everything

[Vit_213]

A possible check point for short line tang stamp.
For Pruner knives #1 in the catalogs and price lists until 1958 indicated on the wood handles.

From 1965 indicated on the plastic handle.

Both knives have a short line tang stamp. So I think that the transition to a long line occurred after changes of handles material for #1. Probably in the 60's.

Sorry if I wrote unclear

[jerryd6818]

I'm giving up on Camillus tang stamps. Trying to figure out when they used what stamp is like trying to herd cats. Bah.
I'm beginning to think the best you can do is get it down to pre-WWII or post WWII or maybe, if your lucky, a quarter of a century.

[Old Hunter]

Here is one more to give up on! Stainless tang stamp from Camillus Rigger knife - Vietnam era (used by Sailor on USN ships). OH

[carrmillus]

Camillus.jpg

Looking at this image of Camillus tang stamps and dates, what is your opinion as to the correctness of the dates provided? Especially looking at the Camillus short line (1946-50) and the Camillus No Line (1946-56). It would seem that following a pattern that these two stamps are reversed as far as dating and even as far as date ranges. It would seem to me that the no line stamp would be earlier than the short line stamp and that the date ranges would be 1946-50 for the no line and probably 1950-60? for the short line.

Anyone have an opinion?

.......now, i'm confused again!!!...goin's says the 3 line curved Camillus with the 2 bars and dot in the center was used from 1902-1915(all blades)???????............. ...........................