Case/Kutmaster Parts Knife
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:13 pm
https://www.ebay.com/itm/153516576998
This parts knife is comprised of a long clip blade from a Case Tested XX era -2095 or -1095* knife re-housed in a Kutmaster tickler frame. How do we know this? The handle is the giveaway. both the one and two blade 095 pattern knives from the Tested XX era were housed in 4 7/8" frames made of a slightly lighter gauge material then what we have come to refer to** as the --1093 tickler. The Kutmaster tickler was also made of a light gauge material but was just a hair stockier (2.2 oz vs. 1.9 oz) and measures out to 5" in length. As you can see in the photos below, the bolster on the Kutmaster Tickler to the left is slightly longer than the Tested Tickler on the right. In the next photo you'll see that the end cap on the Kutmaster (left) is also longer than the Case. Case only sold one tickler with grooved bolster and cap but this knife was a Utica tickler with a long muskrat type blade Case contracted durring the W.R. Case & Sons era. So the grooved bolster and cap on the knife in question is another red flag***.
Handle material: I've seen a number of 1095 pattern knives from this era with a number of different handle materials. Kutmaster definitely used this particular type of striped material. I'm not sure if Case did so I'll leave this up to Steve or others who know for sure.
An exposed pivot pin is often cited as an indication of a swapped out blade. unless this swapping has been done sloppily or with the wrong pin material I don't believe this should be considered a red flag--but definately a yellow. I have plenty of older knives with the pivot pin exposed that haven't had the blades swapped out.
* If you don't collect Case knives these pattern designations--especially on the Tickler pattern knife--can be confusing. If I have left out the first digit in the pattern number it is because that is the handle material digit and they often vary. To complicate things, very few Case pocket knives from the Tested Era had pattern numbers stamped into the back of the main blade. This is especially frustrating when it comes to their Tickler pattern folders because Case tended to swap the 093 and 095 pattern number around for one reason or another and they didn't always stick to the general rule of thumb that the change in pattern number indicated a design change.
** I just purchased a 31093 tickler with a &Sons/Bradford era blade and supper slender frame. I can't explain the existance of this knife other than it is legit. But I would call it an exception looks-wise to the Tested --1093 which is a lot stockier.
***Kutmaster made their ticklers with and without the notched bolster and cap.
This parts knife is comprised of a long clip blade from a Case Tested XX era -2095 or -1095* knife re-housed in a Kutmaster tickler frame. How do we know this? The handle is the giveaway. both the one and two blade 095 pattern knives from the Tested XX era were housed in 4 7/8" frames made of a slightly lighter gauge material then what we have come to refer to** as the --1093 tickler. The Kutmaster tickler was also made of a light gauge material but was just a hair stockier (2.2 oz vs. 1.9 oz) and measures out to 5" in length. As you can see in the photos below, the bolster on the Kutmaster Tickler to the left is slightly longer than the Tested Tickler on the right. In the next photo you'll see that the end cap on the Kutmaster (left) is also longer than the Case. Case only sold one tickler with grooved bolster and cap but this knife was a Utica tickler with a long muskrat type blade Case contracted durring the W.R. Case & Sons era. So the grooved bolster and cap on the knife in question is another red flag***.
Handle material: I've seen a number of 1095 pattern knives from this era with a number of different handle materials. Kutmaster definitely used this particular type of striped material. I'm not sure if Case did so I'll leave this up to Steve or others who know for sure.
An exposed pivot pin is often cited as an indication of a swapped out blade. unless this swapping has been done sloppily or with the wrong pin material I don't believe this should be considered a red flag--but definately a yellow. I have plenty of older knives with the pivot pin exposed that haven't had the blades swapped out.
* If you don't collect Case knives these pattern designations--especially on the Tickler pattern knife--can be confusing. If I have left out the first digit in the pattern number it is because that is the handle material digit and they often vary. To complicate things, very few Case pocket knives from the Tested Era had pattern numbers stamped into the back of the main blade. This is especially frustrating when it comes to their Tickler pattern folders because Case tended to swap the 093 and 095 pattern number around for one reason or another and they didn't always stick to the general rule of thumb that the change in pattern number indicated a design change.
** I just purchased a 31093 tickler with a &Sons/Bradford era blade and supper slender frame. I can't explain the existance of this knife other than it is legit. But I would call it an exception looks-wise to the Tested --1093 which is a lot stockier.
***Kutmaster made their ticklers with and without the notched bolster and cap.
You Sure can Root -em Out Robo 
