This will be my only post here unless something dramatic pops up.

Chris, you say "there are two "camps" ... and then mildly disparage and misrepresent our case, and generally act like the two "camps" are in some way equal and it is a toss up to decided which is correct. I don't mind the mild commentary. But... sorry, the two "camps" are not equal.

Let's be honest. One "camp" is me, Ron, and many others who have proposed and documented a thesis that there is an easily identifiable difference between HKL and Johnson brown button sheaths. The other "camp" is mostly one active person (perhaps there are others who have not joined the discussion), Joe, who first opposed the thesis in its entirety, but now proposes exceptions that will basically negate the new "rule." That is ok if the research is done and made public.

The case for a visual and construction difference between Heiser, aka HKL, and Johnson was developed systematically, with many examples uniting each of the two groups together and putting them into context with each other. History and provenance and documented knives were used, the community participated with examples.

In developing the case, we posted all the knives that could be found that had anomolies. We solicited the collector community to provide examples pro and con. We discussed all the sheaths that did not fit the pattern and did not seek to hide any such sheaths. In the end, the overwhelming evidence led to the conclusion. The case did not start with a proposed conclusion and then seek to prove it.

Now what do we have in this case. We have one knife that to all the world looks like (to me and others) it fits like a glove in the HKL catagory. But what has been posted about it is conjecture, and that one sheath has suddenly morphed. It became a full-fledged out-of-the-blue hypothesis that some sheaths were made by Johnson that were exact replicas of HKL. The proof? None has been offered, only opinions. No other examples, nothing to tie whatever feature of that sheath is the flavor of the day to one group and exclude it from the other.

Now we have another knife with metal snaps that is being used as bait. Well, If someone want to post such a sheath, post a complete set of pictures, and propose your opinion and how it fits. I'll be happy to consider it, discuss the ideas. However, showing tiny bits of a sheath and withholding key elements is not discussion ... it is "gotcha." I don't think I will play that game anymore. Please note neither Ron or I have ever played that gambit.

I am gratified that the basic thesis seems to be accepted now. It already has been by most vintage collectors. Honestly, I look forward to some documentation, an intellectual case complete with pictures, commentary, history, that tightly identifies these "new" components and shows how they apply over a large class of sheaths. But I doubt it is going to happen.

Regards, Jack

PS: The argument is about sheaths, not someone's character or personal worth. There is only one infallible entity and I'm not it, Ron isn't, Joe isn't etc. It is not a stain on anyone's expertise if another's thesis is proved correct... nope ... we all gain as collectors.

I've been warned again about wearing out my welcome. Fine, not sure what is objectionable, the content, how it is delivered or my references to other theses. I will try to avoid denigrating other persons. But it I get tossed, well... I'll still do research... just can't help it. Regards to all.