All About Pocket Knives

Thought I might toss this in here for reference purposes!!

3F;As far as referance purposes,we have the same tang stamps but yours has scale pins mine doesn't Also what year do you think these #14's were made? Thanx

G dog-
The earliest method of attaching the handles were the pins that you see in Scott's knife.
Then Camillus moved to the prong method of attaching handles.
In these pictures you see the prong's that are little triangles of the liner material punched outward into the handle material. I am not sure if the handles were molded on the liner or if the liners were heated and pressed into the handle material.

After the prong they moved to the post method of attachment. In this picture you see two posts of handle material that fit into holes in the liner. Unfortunately I had removed the handle material protruding through the liners prior to taking this picture. I think perhaps the posts are pressed through the holes in the liner and then melted with heat. This liner is from a TL-29. The handles attached this way are very secure and extremely difficult to remove.

I know this is the method used to attach the handles on the most recent TL-29's from the Camillus factory.

That #99 I had re-handled originally had delrin handles pressed onto the triangular tabs and it's from the '46-'50 era. Scott's #14 has delrin handles with pins and it's from the '60-'76 (approximately) era. They sure didn't do anything the same way twice.

For what it's worth, I looked at the catalogs and in the '73 catalog it shows the #14 with three pins. In the '78 catalog the #14s only have a rocker pin.

So this is like my Camillus made Buck 303 with just a rocker pin ?

garddogg56 wrote:So this is like my Camillus made Buck 303 with just a rocker pin ?

Your 303 was probably made by Camillus, so that is probably the way it was made.

jerryd6818 wrote:That #99 I had re-handled originally had delrin handles pressed onto the triangular tabs and it's from the '46-'50 era. Scott's #14 has delrin handles with pins and it's from the '60-'76 (approximately) era. They sure didn't do anything the same way twice.

For what it's worth, I looked at the catalogs and in the '73 catalog it shows the #14 with three pins. In the '78 catalog the #14s only have a rocker pin.

To me the evidence seems to indicate that some models were changed over before others.
I am not sure that once they switched from pinned on handles to prong or post handles that they never went back to pinned handles. I think the type of handle material available often dictated the methods of attachment used. A material that could be injection molded on the handle as some of the early plastics might lend itself more readily to the prong method of handle attachment.

Obviously prong or post methods would not work well with bone handles, and I am not sure about Delrin handles. I am not certain, but I believe the Delrin handles were made just slightly larger than the liners they fit on. I do not recall seeing any Delrin handles attached by the prong method. I have seen the post method used extensively on the later production TL-29 knives, but I'm not positive those black handles are actually Delrin. It is possible they are another similar type of plastic.

Tom Williams has told me repeatedly that you cannot reliably date Camillus knives by the tang stamps. He once told me that the old tang stamps and the new tang stamps were all kept on the same shelf in the factory. He indicated to me that it was quite possible that workers could grab an old tang stamp and stamping a batch of new blades. He said the more reliable method of dating Camillus knives is to look at the materials and the methods of manufacturing used on the knife you are trying to date.

I have seen a lot of older knives, knives with no line under the Camillus name on the tang stamp, or knives with a short line that were made with the prong method of construction. The handle material on those knives tends to shrink, crack and warp. Jerry, I think that is the case ot your #99 it was an early plastic or perhaps celluloid that lent itself well to the prong method of construction. I do not recall seeing any knives that I could definitely say were Delrin that were actually attached with the prong method.

It may be they use the prong method in the 50s and 60s to attach celluloid or early plastics and then return to the pinned method of construction when they switch to Delrin. I am putting together a list of questions to e-mail to Tom. That question is already on my list.

Dale; these#14's are carbon steel if they weren't it would say stainless on the tang,I have two Cubscout knives same tang one states stainless one doen't.Thanks Dale I'm learning all the time

Thanks Dale I'm learning all the time

+1

Vit;are the scales delrin??I like the color

Yes, it is Cabone (Dyed Delrin)

got this 14 in last week

cato -- '46 - '50 tang stamp. Pinned shield. Bone handles. What's not to like. That's one sweet knife.


After researching the #72s to see if I could figure out what year they last pinned on the Delrin, I ran across this thread again and did a quick check on the #14s. Same as the #72s. The last year the Delrin handles were pinned on the #14s was 1976 just like the #72s

orvet wrote:

jerryd6818 wrote:That #99 I had re-handled originally had delrin handles pressed onto the triangular tabs and it's from the '46-'50 era. Scott's #14 has delrin handles with pins and it's from the '60-'76 (approximately) era. They sure didn't do anything the same way twice.

For what it's worth, I looked at the catalogs and in the '73 catalog it shows the #14 with three pins. In the '78 catalog the #14s only have a rocker pin.

To me the evidence seems to indicate that some models were changed over before others.
I am not sure that once they switched from pinned on handles to prong or post handles that they never went back to pinned handles. I think the type of handle material available often dictated the methods of attachment used. A material that could be injection molded on the handle as some of the early plastics might lend itself more readily to the prong method of handle attachment.

Obviously prong or post methods would not work well with bone handles, and I am not sure about Delrin handles. I am not certain, but I believe the Delrin handles were made just slightly larger than the liners they fit on. I do not recall seeing any Delrin handles attached by the prong method. I have seen the post method used extensively on the later production TL-29 knives, but I'm not positive those black handles are actually Delrin. It is possible they are another similar type of plastic.

Tom Williams has told me repeatedly that you cannot reliably date Camillus knives by the tang stamps. He once told me that the old tang stamps and the new tang stamps were all kept on the same shelf in the factory. He indicated to me that it was quite possible that workers could grab an old tang stamp and stamping a batch of new blades. He said the more reliable method of dating Camillus knives is to look at the materials and the methods of manufacturing used on the knife you are trying to date.

I have seen a lot of older knives, knives with no line under the Camillus name on the tang stamp, or knives with a short line that were made with the prong method of construction. The handle material on those knives tends to shrink, crack and warp. Jerry, I think that is the case ot your #99 it was an early plastic or perhaps celluloid that lent itself well to the prong method of construction. I do not recall seeing any knives that I could definitely say were Delrin that were actually attached with the prong method.

It may be they use the prong method in the 50s and 60s to attach celluloid or early plastics and then return to the pinned method of construction when they switch to Delrin. I am putting together a list of questions to e-mail to Tom. That question is already on my list.

...dale, maybe this explains the old wood handled jumbo(4 1/4" closed) jacknife i just got that has the primary blade stamped with the 4 line stamp and the secondary stamped with the arched underlined 3 line stamp!!!.... ..............

I don't know if that is applicable to your knife John, if I understood what you were getting at.
What I was talking about were post war (WWII) knives.
I think your knife with a 4 line & a 3 line stamp on the same knife is definitely well before WWII,

.......dale, i think this knife is definitely pre ww2, and i think it is one of those situations you mentioned somewhere about them never throwing anything away-this was the correct blade(the 3 line) probably left over from an earlier knife. i can tell it has never been taken apart....thanks for the input!!... ................

Hi Guys,
I have two questions:
1. Is it worth 15 dollars for this knife?
2. Why did his handles shrank like washed pants?

Eustace wrote:Hi Guys,
I have two questions:
1. Is it worth 15 dollars for this knife?
2. Why did his handles shrank like washed pants?

1.) No. Besides the handles shrinking, the main blade is not in good condition. #14s don't typically go for big money and with some patience, you can find them in much better condition for $20 and under. I have a couple with bone handles that I gave under $20 for.

2.) Those handles are made of a synthetic that Camillus used in the '30s and '40s that was very prone to shrinkage. That knife is from the late '40s or very early '50s.

I love the #14 pattern and it takes every bit of self control I can muster to keep from buying every one I see that's in decent condition.
Here's a couple from my pile.

I paid $15 for this one. I paid $12.27 for this one.

Thank you Jerry! I pour you virtual glass with Bulgarian homemade grape brandy.
Still, I'm going to suggest a small amount to the seller. If I can bargain, I can use it as a project. I can clean it and change handles with bone or horn. To save a knife from scrap...

That's your choice of course. With that in mind, I wouldn't offer him more than $10-$12. They are not a scarce knife.

You have a PM.

Vit_213 wrote:Yes, it is Cabone (Dyed Delrin)

...........mint condition, as usual, vit!!!!.............