Why ron, why would you pass on this one? It is open for discussion like (what we will call) sheath #1, which you did so with great fervor.

I think in the interest of furthering knowledge here for the members it is incumbent of you to comment.

I'll tell you why, Joe: If you're still putting a label of Johnson on that 1-8 sheath, then I really don't care to have any further discussions with you about sheaths. It would be an absolute waste of my time.

Oh, I see. While I am reasonably sure the 1-8 could be a Johnson, I can't say 100%, especially w/o a hands on examination, you are not willing to offer the same consideration that it only could be a Heiser. You are adamant about it because of the snap location and stamp orientation only as though it is an absolute. Nothing else presented to the contrary is even considered. You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that maybe you do see why I might think what I think.

You should come clean, this second sheath scares ya. Rather than give your opinion on it, and risk possibly being forced to concede that I made some valid points, you are gonna use a lame excuse to withdraw from participation. Shame.

What started out as a decent discussion deteriorated into a pack of wolves mentality with you and Jack over what, a difference of opinion on a sheath?!! Seriously?

Well it looks as though I can continue to present information w/o our two most vocal detractors electing to bow out for reasons unknown, well not really, I think we all know why.

But you did say it with 100% certainty multiple times:








Your subsequent "disclaimer" was pathetic:



And you're using the term lame with me?

That's it, Joe. Find yourself another participant.

"...learned and fanciful..." hummmm. Sir, I suggest that perhaps you review what the term "Occum's Razor" means and how it is applied.

Tell me ... which is the "simplest" of these two arguments:

1. - "Heiser made all the sheaths that look like a known Heiser including those stamped 'Randall;'
- Johnsons made all the sheaths that look like a known 'Johnson;'
- Heiser did not make sheaths that look like Johnson because there are no such documented sheaths or supporting documents and research;
- Johnson did not make sheaths that look like Heiser's because there are no documented sheaths of that type, or supporting documents or research;
- nor are there any such sheaths that fit the historical timing of Mr. Johnson's sheath making...

"...Furthermore this thesis of 'Heiser's are Heiser and Johnson's are Johnson' fits the known history of Mr. Johnson. And, it is backed up by voluminous data including multiple pictures of documented knives, etc."

or

2. -"Heiser made the sheaths that are stamped "Heiser,"
- Johnson made the sheaths that look just like Heiser's but are stamped Randall.
- but at the same time, Johnson also made sheaths that didn't look like Heiser's but did look like later Johnsons.
- it does not matter that believing the reality of this strange set of behaviors requires introducing Johnson-made sheaths years before the historical record says he started making sheaths for Randall...

"...That's ok because the only way to tell if the sheaths that look like Heiser's but were made by Johnson is to ask Joe. Joe says that he is the one who can tell what Johnson made and Johnson made sheaths that looked like Heiser's and had no resemblance to his other sheaths, years before anyone thought he was making sheaths."

Mr. Rigid54 (no name?), you seem to have picked door number two for the application of "Occum's Razor." I wonder.. could you be wrong about what constitutes "Occum's Razor?" Could you be wrong about which of the above arguments satisfies the philosophic requirement to pick the simplest answer?

I look forward to more of your "learned and fanciful" posts about historical Randalls, sheaths, blade stamps, coolie caps, escutcheon plates, Delrin handles, etc., that include extensive documentation, examples, pictures, footnote references to written and personal accounts, and that are matched to historical data records. Then perhaps I could more accurately provide focused commentary.

By the way... in this case identifying the period does make a difference as has been discussed MANY times. Trying to squeeze hundreds of brown button sheaths into the Johnson-made time frame has distorted the historical record and caused a great many knives to be misidentified and mis-dated. And this has further warped identifying the historical records both before and after this period. It is readily seen in virtually any book about Randalls.

This will be short and sweet because arguing with 5 year old children is a waste of time. The adult reasons, the 5-year old sticks his fingers in his ears, jumps up and down, and screams "nah nah nah I can't hear you." Some people just don't seem to have the knack of discussion as a learning tool.

Joe... this is simple. You are talking in circles and have added nothing at all of substance in this line except smoke. Comprende? Huge amounts of data, including commentary, documented knives, pictures, references, contributions by other major collectors such as Gary Clinton, who laboriously went through their collections and added commentary confirming theses, etc. have been posted. And much much more.

All that massive collection of data supports the conclusions which provide an easy way to distinguish between Heiser and Johnson. This vastly simplifies the historical record and finally makes sense of what had been a period of serious contradictions and distortions. It is not required that one accept the conclusions, but it is required that they acknowledge the effect of the data, which changed the starting point of any discussion. You cannot seem to bring yourself to do even that... can you? So ....

Suddenly, out of the blue with no indication of where any of it came from, you post this about Johnson sheath characteristics:

1. Leather type
2. Leather mottling
3. Stitching on front

5. Lack of edge tooling
6. Different die used to cut sheath
7. Lack of throat flair

You have not posted a single documented, illustrated example, any backup data, any references that show these ... "features (?)" are associated with all or most Johnson's, or are unique to Johnson leather sheaths.

In short, this is just off-the-wall, obstructionist and ignorant BS. Are you next going to claim that "Johnson sheaths have an orange-color complexion" or some other just made-up characteristic? that you expect others to take seriously? Who the heck do you think you are? I'm through with you.

If Randall Knives is counting on you, and you ...

(a) "authenticate" Heiser look-alike sheaths such as you posted, calling them "Johnsons," (b) based on so-called pulled-out-of-a-hat features such as above; ... well ... I feel sorry for Randall's credibility. Credibility has a fungible quality. Like printed money it needs a sober hand on the press or..... Caveat Emptor... Unfortunately, I think I detect hyper-inflation on the horizon of the world of "authenticating."

Jack, the Razor states the "burden of proof" is on you.

Prove your theory with facts, i.e.; correspondence with Heiser, correspondence with the stamp manufacturer, shipping bill of ladings, receipts, etc., or drop it. Simple, really.

Otherwise, as stated, too much lost history, variables that can not be known and, most importantly, information and statements from Randall Made Knives to the contrary.

Will either Ron, Jack, or both comment on the #3 sheath with the Baby Dot snaps?

That is the only thing that matters at this point. Comprende?

You both are running from that like a hooker leaving church on Sunday.

Every forum member is anxiously awaiting your critique.

I will address the other drivel later. Maybe.

Folks, this thread is not getting better.

There is a lot of evidence, discussion, and opinion in this thread..... most of it really good.

I would appreciate it if we could steer clear of any additional evaluations of anyone's credibility or reputation.

Keep it on topic or I will lock it.

Thank you,

I agree with Mitchell here. I think the world of Ron, Jack, and Joe. I have learned so much from these guys and have done deals with Ron and Joe. As my kid says....you guys are the bomb when it comes to Randall's. Let's get this back on track. We need all of you here!
Ronnie(the peace maker)