.

[New_Windsor_NY]

.

[XX Case XX]

That's easy:

If it's made by the same company, it's a "Variation".

If it's made by someone else, and the parent company owns the trademark or the rights to that design, and that item basically looks the same but with minor alterations, it's a "Clone".

Look at all the Colt 1911 clones out there.

___________
Mike

[jerryd6818]

Bingo Mike. Well said and so clear even the most confused individual can understand it.

[orvet]

We need a 5th option in the poll: A, B, C & D are all variations.

[jerryd6818]

Oops. I spoke too soon. There's one of those confused individuals now.

[doglegg]

I'm with Mike.

[Vit_213]

The definition of “variation” has no problems - all knives made by Camillus according to pattern #55, it's a variations.
The term "clone" means an exact copy, but in the topic "Camillus 72 Clones" I have not seen such (maybe I watched inattentively). There are similar knives by other manufacturers, but not clones.

[kootenay joe]

I don't understand. What i see are 4 Camillus 72 pattern knives and all were made by Camillus; i.e. all 4 are Camillus #72.
How could they be classified otherwise ?
kj

[Vit_213]

I don't understand. What i see are 4 Camillus 72 pattern knives and all were made by Camillus; i.e. all 4 are Camillus #72.
How could they be classified otherwise ?
kj

+1

[DM11]

That's easy:

If it's made by the same company, it's a "Variation".

If it's made by someone else, and the parent company owns the trademark or the rights to that design, and that item basically looks the same but with minor alterations, it's a "Clone".

Look at all the Colt 1911 clones out there.

___________
Mike

Bingo we have a winner!

[New_Windsor_NY]

.

[New_Windsor_NY]

.

[New_Windsor_NY]

.

[New_Windsor_NY]

.

[New_Windsor_NY]

.

[Mumbleypeg]

Seems to be a matter of semantics.

Ken

[New_Windsor_NY]

.

[kootenay joe]

Skip, with my collecting i do not see a change in the shield or the change of handles, etc. as making any difference in how i classify or group them. Most patterns by most knife manufacturers underwent cosmetic variations over time.
I have a large and varied collection and i group by country, manufacturer and pattern. To further divide up pattern into small groups based on cosmetic details would require too many small containers to hold each of the changes and would detract from the interest when looking at them.
If i specialized in just a few patterns by one manufacturer i might sub-divide them, but even here i do not see the cosmetic changes as significant enough to require separating them.
'Knives' are such a huge entity that there is no one correct way to group them. Every collector must decide for himself how to organize his inventory of knives.
kj

[royal0014]

Skip, you off yer meds or something ?
You ask for peoples opinions, and then go off the deep end when the
general opinion doesn't fit your convenient little box ....


I will stop short of saying 'get a life' but you certainly need perspective

[jerryd6818]

We're getting into the area of Conceptual semantics here and that's waaay too deep for a subject this simple on a pocket knife forum. And before anyone gets their fur up because they took that to mean that we are a bunch of uneducated ignoramuses, that's on the other side of the planet from what I mean.

It appears the 72 has been a bone of contention for controversy since it's inception (which it's self is shrouded in mystery). Camillus called the originals a "Carpenters and Whittlers" knife. Well right away the purists jumped on that. It's not a "whittler" they cried, because it doesn't have a split back spring and both secondary blades at one end and the primary blade at the other end riding on both tapered springs. I called 'em clones because it was the first word that popped into my mind. I guess I should have called them copies. Would that have avoided all this dust and feathers?

In the interest of trying to keep it short, let me try to explain how "clone", as it applies to the Camillus 72 pattern (or should I say the "Carpenter's and Whittler's" pattern), came to be. When this fella called Jerryd (okay, when I) fell in love with the 72 (to keep it short) he (I) started to notice that Camillus wasn't the only company that made the pattern. After a little digging I discovered that to the best of my knowledge, the pattern was introduced by Camillus right after WWII, in 1946 and except for the ones they made for Sears there was nothing like it until Schrade jumped on the bandwagon with their 863 in the early 1950's. What to call these usurpers of my beloved Camillus 72 (and it turns out there are a LOT of them)? I settled on "clones". I guess I could have called them copies but that was so pedestrian. End of story. I shall continue to refer to them as clones, y'all can call them whatever you please.

[LanG]

We're getting into the area of Conceptual semantics here and that's waaay too deep for a subject this simple on a pocket knife forum. And before anyone gets their fur up because they took that to mean that we are a bunch of uneducated ignoramuses, that's on the other side of the planet from what I mean.

It appears the 72 has been a bone of contention for controversy since it's inception (which it's self is shrouded in mystery). Camillus called the originals a "Carpenters and Whittlers" knife. Well right away the purists jumped on that. It's not a "whittler" they cried, because it doesn't have a split back spring and both secondary blades at one end and the primary blade at the other end riding on both tapered springs. I called 'em clones because it was the first word that popped into my mind. I guess I should have called them copies. Would that have avoided all this dust and feathers?

In the interest of trying to keep it short, let me try to explain how "clone", as it applies to the Camillus 72 pattern (or should I say the "Carpenter's and Whittler's" pattern), came to be. When this fella called Jerryd (okay, when I) fell in love with the 72 (to keep it short) he (I) started to notice that Camillus wasn't the only company that made the pattern. After a little digging I discovered that to the best of my knowledge, the pattern was introduced by Camillus right after WWII, in 1946 and except for the ones they made for Sears there was nothing like it until Schrade jumped on the bandwagon with their 863 in the early 1950's. What to call these usurpers of my beloved Camillus 72 (and it turns out there are a LOT of them)? I settled on "clones". I guess I could have called them copies but that was so pedestrian. End of story. I shall continue to refer to them as clones, y'all can call them whatever you please.

A couple decades ago I had the pleasure of spending a day with T.P. Mills, a legend in handmade putters. I remember getting a kick out of the way he referred to all the new "designers" that were mass-producing putters using his designs- he called them the "Xerox kids".

I think I'll call the clones the "Xerox knives".

Merry Christmas to all the fine folks here. I wish everyone safe travels, and plenty of homemade pie!

[jerryd6818]

You can certainly do that. I think there are enough gray heads here that remember when "Xerox" was the generic generally accpeted name for a copy machine.

[doglegg]

You can certainly do that. I think there are enough gray heads here that remember when "Xerox" was the generic generally accpeted name for a copy machine.

Jerry I hope this doesn't lead to a discussion of all the variations of "gray heads".

[New_Windsor_NY]

.

[Vit_213]

You can certainly do that. I think there are enough gray heads here that remember when "Xerox" was the generic generally accpeted name for a copy machine.

In Russia, a copy of any document made using any copy machine is called a xerocopy.