Let's start with the E-bay "Heiser employee" unfinished sheaths that had Randall stamps. It is very difficult to imagine a Heiser employee who lived his whole life in Colorado and left as part of his estate, a box of Randall stamped sheaths. To accept the above would require that at some point in his life, he went to Florida and acquired those unfinished sheaths from Mr. Johnson. He would then have had to put them into a box of unfinished Heiser sheaths. That is bit of a stretch in my book.

It is even harder to imagine that in 1959, Mr. Johnson started making Randall sheaths absolutely identical in every way to Heisers except for the logo stamp ... and that he made a thousands of them from 1959-1963. Then in about early 1963, he decided to change the entire leather layout and construction characteristics of his sheaths.

To my knowledge, Heiser did not "maintain their logo." The "Heiser" logo we are most familiar with was dropped for most other Heiser products in the early '50s when Heiser ceased to be ony "Heiser." Thereafter, the Heiser stamp was mainly used on Randall knife sheaths. After 1959, the Heiser logo again changed to a cheap looking cartoon-ish stamp used on other Heiser products.

More info ... the sheath stamp is most likely applied to the leather early in the process of construction. It would be difficult to reliably apply a stamp to a completed sheath, I've tried to simulate it in my shop.

The conclusion of the above, which by no means constitutes the entire case, is that Heiser stamped those sheaths. So what about the statements of Mr. GTR? Perhaps he was mistaken.. it was very early in his time in the shop when Heiser quit making sheaths. Or perhaps someone misunderstood what he said or meant, or missed a qualifying word or two.

It requires a pretty unusual set of circumstances to imagine anyone other than Heiser making those brown-button sheaths with the Randall stamp from 1959 to 1963. The case is pretty solid. I think the folks holding out against accepting this are becoming a pretty isolated minority now. But this is still America and all are entitled to an opinion. I just wish they would publish the case for Johnson-made, or whomever-made, so that it can be examined along-side the perponderance of evidence posted in favor of Heiser-made.

Jack,
I spoke with Gary quite recently. His wording was not mis-heard. He stated that he "knew" his Father was "actively" seeking other sheath makers. Samples were received from a few and, even the "Heiser former employee", with no records had "sample" examples? Jack: We can all speculate and..hell I have no certainty about this era. I was younger than Gary.
GTR also has no recall of the name of the harness maker who has been tied to some of this mystery. Does that make it not so? Perhaps. I would wonder why Heiser would send "samples" to the Randall shop, after already having been making these sheaths for decades, especially when Bo Randall was actively trying to find somebody else?
I love the pashion you pursue these questions with Jack. I hope you, (we) whomever can get a finite answer someday. Maybe this is just what makes this "Randall thing" so much darn fun! Keep up the good hunt, Jack. I am not one to jump in on posts and expound kudos, be it new knives or research on "oldies", but I appreciate you dedicating your time in the strife.
Best, Capt. Chris

Ron -

the snap on the keeper appears to be offset a bit that lends itself to appearing larger but not by much if it is at all.

You are completely discounting Gaddis and to say that HKL (not Heiser as we know it) had a press for the "larger" Baby Dot that was not even a thought PRIOR to Johnson's suggestion to Bo, Gary, and Bill to make the change, is more than a big reach.

By your logic, HKL "suggested" or "experimented" with the change well before Johnson made the change. So using that same logic, why is there a 3-4 year period where HKL continued to use the inferior brown button when the Baby Dot was available to them but the change only came about because of Johnson?

The snaps you mention from 1950 are a totally different animal. Not apples to apples.

Jack -

http://www.rmkcollector.com/archives/the-randall-collector/a-johnson-sheath-footnote-part-iii/

I wrote this a couple of years ago. You can find some "Heiser" history there.

Heiser as we know it no longer existed. It was a different company and really only a part of a larger one. It would appear the company had changed direction to some extent. So how interested was the remnants of the H.H. Heiser company in continuing the relationship with RMK? No one has considered the view from the other side of the equation. We only talk about Bo looking for a local maker.

The auction of those sheaths is being portrayed as the litmus for the Heiser/Johnson debate. We don't really know who the original owner was, what the true extent of his involvement of HKL was, i.e. how long was he with them? What kind of territory did he have? What was he selling? How did he come about the sheaths?

A question would be what would the "salesman" need RMK sheath samples for when H.H. Heiser had already been making sheaths for RMK for 15 plus years? Just to show an RMK stamp? Bo could have done that in Orlando if he wanted to see how the stamp looked on leather. To show to other knife makers? Unlikely in my opinion.

I know of no reason why the HKL company would not use the stamp they had at the time to indentify their leather products but make a switch to an RMK stamp unless they were asked to do so by Bo. It doesn't seem that is the case.

Joe,

I took measurements on half a dozen Heiser and Johnson sheaths: The keeper strap widths are all 9/16" (Within a negligible tolerance), and the baby dot snaps on the Johnson sheaths are exactly 1/2" (Again within a negligible tolerance). I'm asking you to look again at the 1-6 photos below. I went to the auction and took the two best angles from each side. As you can see, there is no way that snap is 1/2" in diameter if the width of the strap is 9/16":






Not the case at all, Kemosabe! I'm quoting Gaddis: The snap installation machine at Heiser would not accept this stronger Baby Dot fastener, at least not without costly modification. Gaddis doesn't say why it would not accept it. It could be any number of reasons! We'll never know. One thing we do know is that you can't rule out size. I have a circa 1950 Heiser leather 300 Mag cartridge carrier. Pics below:




As you can see, it has a painted steel snap in the same domed configuration as a Baby Dot and is 9/16" in diameter! So Heiser WAS tooled for a 9/16" steel snap!



I'm not going to refer to the later operations of Heiser as "HKL". Yes, the company changed ownership, but there is no evidence that the facility, equipment, operation and personnel were tampered with. From a Randall collectors perspective, a Heiser sheath is a Heiser sheath whether made in 1945 or 1960! With regard to your question: How plausible is this scenario: Johnson had equipment to fasten a 1/2" diameter steel snap, but not a 9/16" diameter snap. Why would Bo pay to have Heiser tool up for 1/2" when he could maintain status quo for a finite period of time? So yes: We're talking apples to apples!

Request to anyone reading this thread and buys the 1-6 in question: Can you please let us know the diameter of the snaps. That will give us a lot more to go on. If I eat crow, it won't be the first time.

On what basis are you making this claim? WOW!

Chris I respect your experience and expertise. But I do this for a living. Unfortunately, an anecdotal conversation with no details is not evidence. I would like to know what prompted the discussion of the Randall stamp and Heiser. Surely you asked some preliminary and follow-up questions, what was answered? What was the context? Assuming the conversation as stated, the exact words are important... such as did he say "so far as I know?" or something similar? After all, we are talking about a stamp supplied to Heiser in 1958-59, long before Mr. GTR joined the shop.

By the way... we all think we know what the Heiser-Keyston-Lichtenberger stamp that was used following the '58-'59 merger looked like... right? Well, maybe not. Here is the first H-K-L combined catalog, front back papes. I can see why Mr. Randall might not want that stamp on his sheaths.



And here are the two (of several) H-K-L stamps. In 1960, immediately after the merger, apparently the buffalo stamp was used at least on saddles. Perhaps the other stamp was adopted later or was used on tack or something. Frankly, both look cartoonish and cheap to me.



Truth is the Heiser stamp we are familiar with was superceded earlier in the decade. It was kept for Randall sheaths, but I speculate that Randall wanted it that way. I would bet that HKL began their corporate life with a new stamp and Mr. Randall just said no...and had his own stamp made... Heck... we KNOW that he had his own stamp made and supplied it to someone. Why is it so difficult to believe he supplied it to Heiser? Why do we have to invented some mysterious third party, or introduce Mr. Johnson four years before he actually appeared on the scene?

Still worried about the word "sample" on those sheaths? I'm not. Salesmen carry a lot of "samples" to show workmanship. They are marked to keep them from being appropriated. Ever seen a "demo" product in a store? AND it occurs to me that those sheaths could have been sample of... guess what ... the use of the Randall-Made stamp and how it would fit onto the sheaths.

This is America and you are entitled to hold to your opinions regardless of the evidence. But at some point I think you all will see that the evidence has become overwhelming and accepted by most of the community. Regards.

Ron -

look closely at the keeper snap. It is not centered on the strap with the base of the male part of the snap even visible sticking out from the strap. That being said, I am not saying it isn't 1/16" or 3/64" or whatever size larger, it may be but the photo is not clear enough for me to determine definitively.

In any case, the old snaps are in fact different irrespective of the diameter. The way the male and female fasten is different than the baby dot. So is the snaps penetration and attachment through and to the leather.





It doesn't matter "why" the HKL machine would not accept that snap. It irrelevant. He clearly states that HKL did not, could not, or whatever, use the snap. It is most likely moot anyway because HKL was pretty much out the door as a sheath supplier to RMK.




You can do as you wish but the fact remains, the Heiser Co. was not Hesier as we know it. It was the second sale of the company in about 8 years and the name had changed. That is a simple fact. No one is 100% certain as to any operations or employment changes, but it is apparent that the company was probably only making knife sheaths for RMK as a small portion of their work with saddlery, harness gear, holsters, etc. as the predominate business plan.

This begs the question, again, that I have not gotten any feedback on. What was the perspective of the HKL "conglomerate" relative to the RMK sheath business? Was it worth devoting the resources to continue? Was the company wanting or encouraging Bo to find another maker? Was the company planning of phasing out that portion of its business? All are certainly plausible but we may never know for sure.

You are surmising Bo was introduced to the Baby Dot fastener prior to Johnson but turned it down? He had already been using Heiser sheaths with a steel snap for years off and on. He didn't make the change then did he? Nope. It was not until Maurice Johnson that the change was made. So the steel snaps used by Heiser were not Baby Dot snaps and never were.

So, while the HKL steel snap was available, it was not used on knife sheaths regularly through 50's into the early 60's. It was a different snap than the Baby Dot.

Joe,

All I was saying (and it seems you agree now) is that the snaps on that 1-6 sheath are not same "Baby Dots" as the Johnson Baby Dots.

IMO the only major impact of the ownership change at Heiser for Bo was their agreement to use his stamp!

Yes, I think Bo agreed to have Heiser attach large "baby dot like" snaps to at least one sheath around 1960 and there was no discussion about "stronger" snaps at that time. Bo was only interested in getting a knife or knives to his customers at that juncture.

Any of Heiser's steel snaps were "stronger" than the BB's because of the material differences. You and I have a lot of experience with BB's. For the most part they are still as a whole functional after almost 70 years! (The real fragile snaps were the translucents). IMO the reasons Bo did not have Heiser switch to steel snaps was:
1. The marginal BB "strength" issue was not causing any consequential loss of business.
2. He didn't want to pay to tool Heiser up for a steel snap with the Randall name stamped into it. (Until HKL agreed to put the Randall stamp on the back of the sheath, there would have been no way to link a Heiser sheath to a Randall knife).

It may have been the harsher conditions of the humidity in Vietnam that prompted Bo to switch to the Baby Dots. All of his sheaths made pursuant to WWII had steel snaps and the numbers nor prolonged months of humidity weren't there for Korea.

Anyway, all food for thought and some good exchanges here! It's interesting how just one sheath coming up on e-bay can spark this kind of mental stimulation.

Joe, reading your essays convinces me that you were quite close to declaring those brown-button Heiser look-alike sheaths with the "Randall-made" stamp as "Heiser-made" years ago.

http://www.rmkcollector.com/archives/the-randall-collector/a-johnson-sheath-footnote-part-iii/

That is a darn good essay and presentation. All that was needed in my opinion was a gentle push... specifically a way to differentiate the two groups of brown-button sheaths. That has been provided now.

We now have found that one group of Brown button sheaths are identical in every respect with the Johnson baby dot sheaths. We also have another much larger group of BB sheaths that are identical in every respect with Heisers, except they have the Randall-made stamp. The two brown-button groups are different from each other in numerous ways.

Since a "Randall-made" stamp was actually manufactured and put into use in 1959... why is it difficult to accept that it would have been easy to just mail that stamp to Heiser and tell them to use it? Mr. Randall had to do that to someone in any case.

----------------------------

RE: those odd snaps. I would surmise both of those snaps were installed at the shop on a Heiser sheath that was forwarded without the hone pocket snap.

Installation of a snap into leather is not complicated nor does it require a sophisticated machine. All that is needed is a hand crimper-type tool. The factory did not usually install the keeper snap in any case. That was generally done at Randall shop after the knife was "fitted" and it was done with such a hand-tool. Heck, you can buy a tool and snap and some leather and try it yourself... it isn't difficult. (For those interested, here is a "how-to" primer with pictures.)

http://www.wikihow.com/Add-a-Snap-to-Leather

These snaps are definitely a set, but odd-ball in that they are not the baby dots adopted later. If Heiser had installed the snap on the hone pocket, it would have been necessary for the Randall shop to have an identical snap available at his shop to make the set. That is unlikely..

There are plenty of examples of mis-matched snap sets from the '59-'60 time period when the supply of brown buttons ran out. In that short period when neither party had snaps, Heiser would install one type of expedient snap on the hone pocket, and the shop would often install a different expedient snap on the keeper. (Ron has written extensively about this with lots of photo documentation in a dedicated line elsewhere)

So... my conclusion is that it is most likely that Heiser forwarded that sheath without any snaps and that Randall installed both snaps which were a temporary, possibly a one-off expedient. It is unlikely that the two shops, 1,500 miles apart had identical one-off temporary snaps available.

Regards