ron, the construction of the little sheath you posted looks far more like the 1-8 sheath that started this discussion than the prototypical HKL sheath which is the tan one on the left that jack posted. From the frontal view, the ONLY real difference is snap placement which I asked you not to get hung up on by the way.

From the rear the ONLY difference is stamp orientation which I asked you not to get hung up on by the way.

I wanted you to look at this sheath w/o consideration of those two factors for a minute. Didn't happen.

So that is it Ron. You and Jack base your whole opinion on the 1-8 sheath in question on those two traits, and completely disregard any other points brought up to make the case as though they don't exist, or deny that there is any possiblity that some or all of the points made have merit. How about the throat flair that "disappeared in the 50's" on the sheath posted by Jack? All I hear is crickets.

So you are in essence doing the very same thing (as stated previously) the "card-carrying collectors" initially did with the RMK stamp saying all of them were Johnson's. You are saying every "west" facing RMK brown button is an HKL sheath. Every BB center snap sheath is a Heiser/HKL.

You guys foolishly think that there is a line or date when Maurice Johnson started to make sheaths and immediately, the first day, heck, the first hour, made these two changes. Like there was some conscious effort on his part acknowledging "If I put the snap towards the edge and flip the orientation of the stamp, people will know these were made by me and not Heiser".

Who knows, the 1-8 could be one of the first ones he made. I can't say. I can say this though with relative certainty, that is NOT Heiser/HKL leather from what I see.

I don't know why you are bringing up "all the sheaths documented going back to 1960.........." Who said anything about those sheaths? They aren't even part of the debate because there is no debate there. I am talking about this single 1-8 sheath and wanted opinions on what it was. That is why I brought it up in the first place, because of the Johnson traits I saw.

Then I get this barrage of not only amateurish but somewhat condescending rhetoric about desert islands and my reputation. For the guy that came on the forum within the last week with the kumbaya reconciliation and can't we all just get along mantra, I find it surprisingly hypocritical. Disappointing.

I will put it out there my friend, because I think it is exactly what I say it is. An early example, maybe one of the first Johnson BB sheaths to be identified as such. Of course a hands on examination would be best and the possibility of me changing my mind although somewhat remote could happen. I guess it is a no brainer to think I could expect the same from you at this point, so while not ideal, the photos will have to do.

The stitching, Joe the stitching!

No matter. I've been doing some thinking (Yeah I know that's dangerous):

After agreeing on all the evidence a year and a half ago, why would Joe bring up a sheath that is obviously a Heiser and attempt to make a case that's it's an early Johnson?

There's only one scenario that makes sense because like I say you're a smart guy: Gary won't agree to let you authenticate a BB sheath with center keeper position and West facing logo as Heiser or HKL made and you are trying to pave the way to justify your certification that it's a Johnson sheath!

If that's the case, then I'm going to give you a pass and state this for Gary's benefit. If it is not the case, then I'm stating it for yours:

The market puts a premium on Heiser vs. Johnson sheaths. If a customer's authentication states "Johnson sheath" in these cases, then your going to be doing them a dis-service in terms of market value! Market value aside, the most important thing is the accuracy of Randall history!

So.......... the question is: Are you going to be authenticating any BB sheaths with center keeper and West facing logos as HKL sheaths?

Whisky Tango Foxtrot?

I should have anticipated a reply like that.

This is an awesome thread, it really is. It has a lot of great research and discussion.


I admire the passion, but it may be time to agree to disagree before something is said that could do damage.

Thanks,

I had to, it was just too good to pass up.




I will send you a shovel, actually, a CAT 18 ACERT is probably what is called for to dig your way out of this one.

The hole is in the eye of the beholder, Joe.

I love the discussion, keep it going. I am learing alot.

Pap

Have much more to discuss, but ...no, ... I've had enough of this on this board. The disconnect with reality and the delusions seem to be getting worse ... Joe, you need some serious help. You should see the E-mails I'm getting ... people are laughing.

Honestly, do you really want to be another Beaucamp? ... Do you really believe you have the status that you can just declare something-anything, with no backup, no discussion, no examples, no justification and no background ... and people are supposed to just believe it? My friend, your credibility is crashing and you cannot even see it.

You apparently have a nice collection. Good for you.

There are some interesting things to discuss and I would like to reveal some interesting mysteries about Johnson sheath stitching. But I've had enough here, for now. There are other venues. Ciao

There are many reasons why Gary, Jason and myself made the decision to ASK Joe to become the Randall Authenticator for us, Number One being that we believe him to be almost unmatched in his knowledge and passion for the older RMK's. And for some forumites to blatantly question his integrity or question his "reality" and make a suggestion for him to get help and yet refer to him as a pompous ass because of disagreements with you is well beyond the personal attacks that I would take. And since you brought the emails up, I can't BEGIN to tell you of the emails AND phone calls about you either sir. Hate to lose all this knowledge coming through you though. Damn shame this thread had to go this way...I loved it, even the disagreements were informative!

---DW--