All About Pocket Knives

I saw an ad for a Camillus stockman that has "87" stamped on the reverse tang of PRIMARY blade. There was no Camillus tang stamp (no stamp at all) on the front of the primary blade. It has the nail nick near the tip of the primary blade. I checked in a few online Camillus catalogs from the 1970s-90s and I could not find a pattern #87. Shield is a badge, but not it looks like the Sword Brand shield not the old Camillus shield - but there is no engraving on it at all. Any ideas?

EDIT - I was wrong on the location of the "87" - it is not on the pen, it is on the primary.

....never seen or heard of a #87 pattern...... ............

Hmm, how odd. Here's the pics from the ad. I'm thinking that the lack of a logo or branding on the tang stamp means this isn't a Camillus as the ad stated?

That's a Camillus 67 stockman with Delrin handles. I can just barely see the Ca on the tang the rest is worn off. Likely a long line stamp from the 60's-70's.

Edit: Let me rescind that assessment. The 67 should have a match strike pull on the master. Further study is required.

Before I even posted the question I kept trying to make a "6" out of the "8", but I just couldn't do it! It also seems odd to me that the front of the primary tang stamp would be completely worn away, while the reverse is sharp and clear.

You are right - when I blow the picture up to 250% on this puny laptop monitor I can see a "C" and the beginning of a line.

Maybe overzealous refinishing to remove pitting?

If you're interested in buying it, ask the seller for a clearer picture of the tang stamp. It looks to me like there may be more there if the picture was properly exposed.

Ken

No doubt in my mind it's Camillus 87. As Terry opined, there is a 'Ca', underline in that tang stamp. The handles are "Brownstag®" which would coincide with the knife probably being from between 1957 and 1965. Unfortunately a lack of documentation for that time period throws a big monkey wrench in the identification process. Maybe Vit has something on this.

Well, the thing is, if there was no pattern #87, and someone screwed around with this knife, then I really don't want it. That was actually my original question - I'm not very familiar with Camillus patterns. It's not very expensive, but still - I don't need a parts knife.

Or maybe it's an extremely rare, only made for 1-3 years knife. It's just my opinion but it looks genuine to me. There's no profit in messing around with an old Camillus Stock knife and besides the pattern number is the same font Camillus used. Could I be wrong. Most certainly but I've looked at a lot of Camillus knives over the past several years. I even have a couple of what I've come to believe are genuine Camillus 53s. Like this 87, there is no evidence in any of the available catalogs that they ever existed. All I have to go on is one single solitary picture I wish I had copied to my PC that has my style knife with a 53 pattern stamp. Otherwise there was no evidence, hard copy or anecdotal.

Just so you know, I am not trying to talk you into buying it. That is, of course, totally your choice.

Thanks Jerry - that is exactly what I wanted - an informed opinion from someone with way more experience than me. I haven't yet decided if I want to buy it. I like it, as I don't currently have a Camillus stockman in the pile, but I also like readable tang stamps, and it's not what I would consider a screamin' deal, so maybe I'll pass and wait for a better example. Actually passing on a knife before Feb 1 would be a nice change of pace...

When I looked at these pictures and compared them with my #67 knife, it seemed to me that this knife is slightly smaller (according to the arrangement of the shield with respect to the rivets). I also noticed the differences of the main blade and the bolsters...
I looked through the catalogs available to me and made a small collage from the 1959 catalog.
I think it could be a real #87 knife that was made in the period 1960-1964.

Well poop - that means I might have to buy it - I was born in '61...