Bless you Scott. You have not been party to some of the things.. nor have you commented ... nor have you acted out of sorts or called people names.

But I don't come on a chat board to fight, I come to discuss. This "discussion" turned upside down in the most bizarre way imaginable, and it wasn't me who knocked over the chess pieces. I post facts, back up my opinions with data, pictures and example. When I use other's photos, ideas or words, I credit them. I don't disparage, I don't present myself as an expert who expects to be believed without question. There is only one of those type "experts" in the universe and it isn't me.

Knowledge is one thing but it is useless without humility, an open mind, a respect for others, and a willingness to listen and share. Hope you and the shop have learned some new things and are willing to consider the depth of an argument. If not, it isn't my issue.

Regards, thanks for your compliments.

PS: A lot of doors have "hit me in the ass" in my 70 years of life, especially beginning in Vietnam, going through the investigation of the Micondo blowout offshore ... but I've never said those words to anyone. I wonder if you should reconsider your use of that phrase?

Knowledge is one thing but it is useless without humility, an open mind, a respect for others, and a willingness to listen and share.

AMEN.

Yes, in all due respect I do withdraw my comments and apologize sir, I would hate for you to leave us, even Joe has complimented your vast knowledge importance to this forum...Stick around Jack, there's too much that we need to gleen from your research.

With now only 2 employees with 30+ years of service, we at RMK in no way can answer all the questions that arise. There is not a day goes by that we don't send a caller to these forums to ask the questions that we simply no longer have the knowledge to answer.

---DW---

Why thank you Scott.



Much of this is true, and I did allow my frustration with a do-loop circular argument to overload and I do apologize. Just to correct the record though, I've never referred to Joe as "pompous."

I have learned from all of the comments/posts made on the threads. I also know that people are passionate about their Randall knives and related hardware. They all want the RIGHT information to be passed on to other members.

I also realize that there are always exceptions to every rule.

And that people do not always acknowledge the existence of some items made by Randall over the years. Why, I am not sure but it does happen.

So rarely will you get the whole story on a given Knife or Sheath. Or a Roman Short Sword, (one of several) that did not exist but later was sold for a large amount of money.

Just saying. I enjoy all of the posts on this forum.

Tom Vaught

I've told this story before; my first Randall was a Model #1-6", carbon, stag and alum/nut with brass hilt, Michael R. Allen etched, bought in 1967. My brother was living in Tampa and when I would go visit him, sometimes I would go to the shop. On or about 1978, I took my #1 to the shop to get sharpened and Pete asked me if I wanted my sheath rivited, and I said yes. He disappeared around the corner and brought it back with rivits.It was the same sheath as I had dyed it cordavan soon after originally getting it. In 1993, I was under some financial difficulties and I sold that Randall and 2 others to Rhett. A few years later when I was back on my feet, I called Rhett and asked him if he still had my Model 1 and he looked it up and said he sold it soon after he received it from me. So, my Model 1 is out there somewhere and it includes my catalog and envelope from which I made my order. If anyone finds it or has it, I will pay whatever to get it back, plus you can see the sheath as well.

Pap

Thanks Mike for your story, as it is most applicable to this debate (?).

Jack, in all your learned studies & fanciful writings, have you occasioned the principle of Occam's Razor? It's a very old principle that may be applied to many fields. Simply stated, the principle states if there are variables that can not be known, theories that may be introduced (whether reasonable or not) but can not be proven, unknowns that can not be known -the simplest answer is the correct one.

In our case, there are to many variables, Mikes anecdote being a good example. Blades stamped and not handled for, sometimes, years in the future or unknown sheath makers yet to surface as examples. We may speculate, or one could say theorize, until the cows come home -it does not make fact. Again, Occam's Razor, the simplest answer is the correct one. Heiser marked is Heiser -Johnson is Johnson. These old knives can not be pigeon-holed, just too many variables, lost history and the nature of the handmade product.

Not to mention, I'll go out on a limb and state, none here are writing a Thesis on Randall Made Knives. This is an advocation and as such, enjoyable. Too much of the minutae detracts from same.

The overall characteristics of the piece, to the seasoned collector, are sufficient to date the knife within a proper date range -all that's necessary, period.

Jack and Ron -

Please explain this one for me. I know it holds a special place for you Ron being a 3-6, the same as the examples you have provided thus far, so it should be relatively easy for you.

Joe,

We apparently haven't gotten off dead center yet. How about you answer my question and then I'll answer yours:

Neither has that snap!

In no uncertain terms, what I authenticate has absolutely nothing to do with this thread and is simply a distraction. Not to worry, but if you would like to start another thread on authentications, I invite you to do so.

So let's not waste any more time, focus, and cut to the chase on sheath #2.

Hopefully Jack will join you on this one also so the forumites can realize the full advantage of all the participants joining in the discussion.

I think I'm going to pass on this one, Joe. Thanks anyway.