All About Pocket Knives

Does the stag look correct? https://www.ebay.com/itm/265287320256?h ... Sw7o1hKQHY

Weird. It almost looks like 2 different knives. The one with the red background looks different than the one with the brown background? Maybe it's just the lighting?

Pictures for future reference.

I’d like to see an opinion from Tom McCandless or Steve Pfeiffer, but I’m inclined to say it’s legitimate. I hate it when sellers lay the knife beside a ruler instead of giving the actual measurement! In general the knife looks okay to me but I’m no expert. Case Brothers did make a few jacks over 4 inches long. Things that bother me somewhat are that it’s unusual (but not unheard of) to see a Case Brothers knife not stamped XX or TESTED XX, and most (but not all) had a long pull on the master blade. The stag, the shield, the swages all look period-correct to me for an early 1900s knife. JMO

How’s s that for a weasel worded opinion?

Ken

My initial reaction upon seeing the knife is that it doesn't "look" right. Pinning down exactly why is a challenge.

The top bolster looks too long. In my experience it is far more common for the main blade on a Little Valley knife for the words "Case Bros" to be arched vs straight. Also in my experience it is unusual for a regular pull blade to have a swedge and the swedge would be longer. Like mumblespeg said there would typically (but not always) be a "XX" mark on the blade face or something "tested" on the back of the tang on a LV example.

Likewise I'm interested to hear more observations and opinions.

I'll have to study it more, but I'm inclined to say "fake"...but a better than average fake.

The blade tooling reminds me of the tooling used by Robeson on their (fairly common) large English jacks. Stag is nice but does not remind me 100% of the early Case Bros stag.

I am not familiar with the pattern but do believe the blades are authentic. I also believe the knife has been rehandled. Doesn’t look like Case Bros stag and the picture of the back of the knife looks to me like the stag is not flush with the liners and back springs. Wish I could offer more definitive information. I would tend to stay clear but of course I could be wrong. Just my opinion. Really hard to tell a lot without the knife in hand.

Tom

RalphAlsip wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 10:22 pm My initial reaction upon seeing the knife is that it doesn't "look" right. Pinning down exactly why is a challenge.

The top bolster looks too long. In my experience it is far more common for the main blade on a Little Valley knife for the words "Case Bros" to be arched vs straight. Also in my experience it is unusual for a regular pull blade to have a swedge and the swedge would be longer. Like mumblespeg said there would typically (but not always) be a "XX" mark on the blade face or something "tested" on the back of the tang on a LV example.

Likewise I'm interested to hear more observations and opinions.

Glad to see you’re back to posting. I have missed reading your insights on these older knives.

It looks to be at least rehandled to me , the fit doesn't look right , also the area where the handle meets the bolster, when the stag is thinner than the top edge of bolster there is usually more wear on that bolster edge, these don't show that much wear for a hundred year old knife.
Scott

Can’t say much good about it. Overall appearance isn’t good. As Steve said it looks more Robeson to me.