If you save the code for an image in Microsoft word because you want to post multiple pictures, prior to posting there is a typically Microsoft, unnecessary and complicated twist.

This is an example of how the code will read after you copy it to MS word from the photo hosting site before you post it…. [URL=http……...[img][/URL].

If while in the MS word document you hit your space bar after the last “[URL]” at the end of the picture code, MS word will highlight only the [img]http…[img] portion of the code excluding the [url] bracket at the beginning. Then when you post the code to the site, it will not register as a picture in your on-line post, only as a link.

No problem. Before pasting the picture codes from your word document, note that the picture code in your word document now has a portion that has been converted to a blue-highlighted img-link. Right click on the blue highlighted portion of the picture code in your word document, then click “remove hyperlink” in the dropdown box, and now you are good to copy the entire link and post that code on line. The code will now have the bracketing initial [URL] definition and will appear as a picture on the website rather than a link.
Regards.

Ron and Jack,

Fist off I want to thank Jack for taking the time to study this and bring a fresh look into the topic. Sometimes you can't see the forest through the trees and it takes a different approach from a new direction.

Ron, thanks for keeping an open mind.

I looked at my knives of this era and can say that I have over 50 that would fall into the pattern that Jack and Ron suggest. I like to word it differently though: "R" for Randall on top of the sheath versus "R" on the bottom of the sheath. I always liked Heiser's work better than Johnson so "R" on top for Heiser.

I have a few of those sample sheaths in the first photos: Same person, same red lettering.

My pictures are too big so I will do this in a few posts:

The back side of the sample sheath. Sorry, just learning this forum pasting...

O.K. here is a documented 1960 knife. Note the post card from Randall and the date of September 8th 1960 with his matching name on the card and knife.

Now here is the problem. There is always one bad apple in the batch. This knife is obviously an oddball and there is nothing concrete about some guy writing his name and date on the back of the sheath. But the problem is it has the snap in the center of the sheath with the R for Randall on the bottom ( Johnson)

This is the only one like this I have so I would say it's 50 to 1.

From what I see and hear from these last posts I'm on board with this new theory. Sure there may be some exceptions and I'm convinced something must have happened at Heiser for the quality to dip towards the end of their sheath making era. It fits nicely with Gary Randall meeting Johnson in 1962 and it also does not suggest another sheath maker had a major role during this time. Thanks for the posts and I enjoyed this very much.

Gary

Hi Gary,

Thanks for contributing. I'd say we have a pretty convincing sample size now. I wouldn't be surprised if that 5-6 sheath was made on a Monday morning. Back at you on the open-mindedness comment.

Best,

First I would like to say that it is nice to see some honest discussion on this forum beyond the normal “look at my new knife” and “that is a beauty” threads.

The question about who made these sheaths and how and when they were stamped may never be settled with 100% certainty, but current evidence points to what we have been thinking for some time. This is not a new “debate”, and has been the topic of discussion amongst advanced collectors for many years.

Questions that remain unanswered:

The singularly most important question is what was the impetus for Bo to have a stamp made in the first place? Because he had already found a local sheath maker? In the event he found a local sheath maker? He didn't like the new "Heiser" stamp? Why?

More:

1) exactly when the first stamp(s) was purchased?
2) did it stay in the Randall shop in Orlando?
3) was it shipped out of state?
4) was there more than one stamp initially made?
5) did the remnants of the H.H. Heiser Company ship unmarked sheaths to Randall?
6) were unmarked Heiser sheaths stamped with the RMK stamp in the Randall shop?
7) did Maurice Johnson stamp unmarked Heisers’ in his shop?
8) exactly when was Maurice Johnson involved in the sheath making business?
9) did Hesier stay in Denver upon the final sale or move to San Francisco or LA?

This myriad of questions are all part of the puzzle.

I don’t know if the sheath stamp orientation alone is enough to say definitively the sheaths in question were made by Heiser. It is a function of how the cut pieces are laid out as the stamping is done prior to assembly, and as with most quality oriented manufacturers, continuity and uniformity are generally the rule of the day. It does lean in that direction however, and while it is not “new” information per se, having it as part of a series of characteristics, it adds to the evidence for those making a case.

The keeper snap location would also lean towards Heiser production, yet the two sheaths Ron posted photos of with the 3-6’s appear in some respects to be Johnson made.

The leather Hesier used was generally different than what Johnson used for the most part at least early on, but kind of became the same on some examples.

Then there is stitching which no one has addressed yet, and may be the most definitive difference.

I personally think that the “style” of the sheath in overall appearance is surely the most critical piece of evidence and what brought us here to begin with. The sheaths in question just “look” like a Heiser product, plain an simple. Take away all the minutia and just look at the sheath. What do you have? I addressed this in my last article on the subject linked previously in this thread.

Here are a couple of sheaths to think about. Ron was looking for the “control” Johnson, well here it is. The black 1-7 sheath has never had a knife in it. The other “Johnson” is almost in the same condition. Note that the black sheath is LH, so the stamp is in the correct orientation that some believe identifies it as Heiser made, yet it is a Johnson made sheath. Hmmmmmm…….

I will state again for the umpteenth time, that to eliminate grey areas and contradictions, and until concrete evidence that would answer some of the questions listed above presents itself, at this time and for my collecting purposes, and even though I may think differently, if a sheath has an RMK stamp, it is a Johnson.

Joe,

I have to leave in a few minutes to pick up the grandkids and take them to the beach, so I won't be able to respond until late today or tomorrow. That's unfortunate as I will be salivating in the interim to the point that I'll probably end up dehydrated.

Best,

I've spent alot of time gazing at sheaths and their construction in an effort to make sense of who made which sheath. It makes ones head hurt sometimes. Here are some photos of five different Model 7's with brown button sheaths. The three on the left are all stamped Heiser. The two on the right have the Randall Made stamping. All five have the "tooled ridge" or groove.

Close examination of the tooled groove shows that it always follows the stitching, and is only where stitching is on the sheath. With this in mind, it seems to me that this tooled groove is likely imparted onto the leather edge by the pressure foot of the stitching machine. I would assume different stitching machines apply different pressure patterns, as this same type tooled groove is not seen on later known Johnson or even Sullivan sheaths. I wonder if this groove could be unique to the stitching machine used by Heiser?

The next photo shows the backs same five sheaths. The die used to cut out the leather varies quite a bit in shape. I wonder if there is anything to be discovered here with respect to the timing of use of specific die patterns? Since the time that Johnson was supplying sheaths overlaps with that of Heiser, it seems likely to me that Johnon's dies for cutting the leather would have been different in some way.