I don't think that is the case Jack. While the #1 was and still is the most popular model, I do not believe there was that much of a surplus of HKL sheaths, and that there may have only been a number enough to ship some knives maybe into 63. Of course there is the possible straggler but most often in a different model than a model 1. The reason I know this is you will almost never see a model one with the shallow choil and wider ricasso in anything but a baby dot or possibly a Johnson BB.

You have to remember, Johnson was up to full production in 5-6 months and HKL was already done. They were done in 62. So, if there was 50 HKL #1 sheaths in stock, they were gone in a matter of months. Johnson was already making BB sheaths, so you were apt to get that during the time frame going into 63.

Joe, my memory may well be faulty and perhaps it was a different model.

Now that I think about it, I do remember you showing two sheaths, one a Heiser and one a brown button Johnson, both model 1s. And certainly one of the ebony handled knives model 1 in the original comparison that launched the whole thing was sheathed in a Johnson brown button.

So .. I retract the statement. Let me re-look at the old info and see if anything can be gleaned from this blind alley. Thanks, regards.

Now to the sheath in question.

First, it is a Johnson, an early BB. The stitching, the butterfly, the backstitching on the throat, the lack of edge tooling, and lastly, a very important trait I was hoping someone picked up on but didn't, the leather. The type(tan) of leather first, and secondly the mottling in the leather. A Johnson trait all the way.

One more thing to look at, and that is the belt loop. It is that "heavier" Johnson leather that makes them bow out like that.

Here are the last two photos:

Beg to differ Joe.

The stitching on the butterfly does indeed look Johnson-esque. But all the other key features say HKL. No Johnson brown button I've seen has a stamp that faces in that direction, or was made with a center keeper snap, etc. Except for one outlier, Johnson brown buttons I've found had no model numbers, only the Randall stamp facing east.

Plus the age of the knife would have to call the Johnson era into question would it not? Trying to make that knife fit the 1963 time period would cheat the knife of some of its early life, or require a "magic Randall" type story of re-sheathing, or old blade laying around for a couple of years before sheathing and shipping.

Actually, the back is exactly like I thought it would be. Not saying your other points are not valid or a consideration, it's just that the major cosmetics and construction characteristics are dead ringers for HKL. This is backed by a very large data base that is available in detail in this line. Gary Clinton alone said he looked at over 50 of his knives and all but one fit the thesis.

Indeed it is the whole point of this line. To accept your list of characteristics and ignore the other major ones would defeat the whole discovery of the differences. It would throw the whole HKL/Johnson grand unification back into chaos. Sorry... no go. You have not made a case for the characteristics you listed ... including pictures etc. It is simply a statement of a set of assumptions without any backup. Those assumptions are from the old world of abrakadabra...and the belief that all raw leather sheets comes in the same color, thickness, and other characteristics.

Here are the poster children for a proto-typical HKL (on left) and an example of the fairly rare Johnson brown button on right. You should recognize these LOL... they are yours!



There is an interesting point about the stitching of the early Johnson sheaths that could be entertaining here. But first things first. No, that isn't a Johnson brown button sheath in my opinion. Regards

Well, we will agree to disagree.

It is not just the stitching on the butterfly, but the front of the sheath. Totally different, no edge tooling. Not the same.

That leather is not HKL leather. That sheath looks nothing like a Hesier/HKL. You put one next to it and it ain't the same, not like the sheaths we have been talking about.

The knife, stone, and sheath package is exactly that, and all pointing to the beginning of the Johnson period.

If you are hanging your hat on the snap position, not gonna fly. Hunt was correct that Johnson did make Heiser(HKL) copies early on. Those are what he used as examples. Johnson put the snap in the same place on some of his early stuff until he determined they weren't that good. Hence the change in snap location and ultimately the switch to the BD's.

You are very adamant about what the HKL sheaths are Jack, so if this is not a Johnson BB to you, albeit and early one, perhaps you can show what you think one is.

ADDED:

The photo of my sheaths above, the one on the left, the HKL we will say, looks like a Heiser, edge tooling on the front and all. The sheath that started this little conversation does not look like it. To say that it does is intellectually dishonest. Save for the snap location, nothing is the same.

One other thing I forgot to mention is the typical Heiser throat flare which is also absent from the sheath that started the conversation. Not to mention it was cut with a completely different die and a completely different shape than the Heiser/HKL.

The LH black sheath was documented to mid-late 63 IIRC.

In the end Jack, what you are looking at is an early Johnson, and the reason I presented this sheath the way I did, in stages, was to see what people said with limited information.

It worked out pretty much the way I thought it would with some sticking to their guns w/o looking at the subtleties. Once you sit back and examine it with the points I have brought up, I think it is relatively clear.

Good discussion.

That is fine Joe. You're perfectly free to believe whatever your assumptions are. But you have not addressed the key findings of the orientation of the stamp and the presence of model numbers, much less shown other alleged Johnsons with a center snap keeper etc.

Why would Johnson make sheaths with the stamp facing west with model numbers and center snap etc., then suddenly change, and begin stamping all his sheaths with the stamp facing east and omit the model numbers? Answer.. unlikely, and the data of hundreds of sheath examples supports the position that he did not do that weird thing.

I've posted a ton of backup data for this position and many others have added a lot of weight and examples. Thus far, you have posted only an opinion, with no backup or examples. You've taken one sheath, thrown out some strange characteristics and declared them to be "Johnson." That is not science nor an investigation nor a presentation of a thesis. Nor in my opinion does it add much to the knowledge base.

But this is America, you can hold your position though I don't quite know what it is other than "ask Joe if it is a Johnson." In any case, I suspect it is going to get pretty lonely out on that desert island with all those Heiser-look-alike Randall stamped Johnson sheaths. Regards.

By the way... any interest in a certain unusual feature of early Johnson stitching I mentioned before? Oh, nevermind...

I dunno Jack. Maybe the copies Maurice was making was right down to the orientation of the sheath stamp. Maybe he laid them out differently. Maybe later as his production increased that changed the orientation. Maybe one of the guys working for him changed it. Maybe he just did it because he wanted to. I don't really know, nor really care.



This conversation started Jack with an example, and example of an early Johnson. Let me "throw out the strange characteristics" that I declared to be Johnson. Let's do a review:

1. Leather type
2. Leather mottling
3. Stitching on front
4. Stitching on butterfly
5. Lack of edge tooling
6. Different die used to cut sheath
7. Lack of throat flair

Those items are meat and potatoes Jack, not "Johnson-esque", but Johnson. Perhaps that is what happens when you are the new guy on the block and using the old guys product as a guide i.e. stamp orientation and snap placement. That is it Jack, that is all you have my friend.



Yep, it is America, and I am gonna hold my position because I know I am right on this one. I can say this, on that desert island where you presume I reside, the isolation does get tough, but also provides me time. Time to have owned, examined, photographed, studied, handled, researched, seen, and fondled more RMK's than you could ever hope to in a lifetime. I have spoken to more collectors, shop employees, older and newer, have attended more shows, contributed to more publications on the subject, and written more articles than most ever will.

I am in no way trying to discourage your efforts, but you kinda remind me of another fella that approached this thing some years ago in the same fashion and he too alienated folks. He also made a valiant effort but unfortunately fell short. I don't want to see you fall short too Jack.

While your contribution is appreciated, and you have contributed, to disregard the facts as listed above and rely solely on traits that can be variable (stamp orientation and snap location) is not solid practice, and dare I say it, is not science nor an investigation nor a presentation of a thesis. Nor in my opinion does it add much to the knowledge base.

By the way, you are 100% certain that Johnson never made a lift-a-dot sheath, right? Oh never mind.........

Joe,

What you're overlooking or ignoring is that Heiser, HKL and Johnson all had different sheath workers, sewing machines, patterns (Heiser & HKL for sure) and leather lots. Constistency was not maintained over time. Let's address all your "evidence":

1. Leather type: No different than many known Heisers (As I mentioned, each company had different leather lots that varied in condition irrespective of the tanning process. I've seen the most inconsistence with Heiser / HKL).
2. Leather mottling: Heiser had it too! Look at my photos below.
3. Stitching on the front: I see no difference between the stitching on your example sheath and a number of known Heisers!
4. Stitching on the butterfly: Ditto!
5. Lack of edge tooling: Oh it's there if you look hard enough! You just picked a sample with a weak impression.
6. Different die to cur sheath: I addressed this above. Also, the two 3-6 sheaths below are not cut from the same die many others were (I should know).
7. Lack of throat flairs: For the most part those went away in the early 50's. Again, look at my examples below: See any throat flares?

All I can see you doing is grasping at straws! There is too much real evidence out there to support the theory you're trying to tear down (i.e. the e-bay Heiser auction and the consistency of the snap placement between Heiser-HKL and Johnson.

We had an exchange on this thread back on May 8th 2013!. At that time I couldn't figure out why you took the position you did because I know your a smart guy. Your response was " I have never said Heiser did not make the sheaths, and in fact am aligned with what the 'preponderance" of evidence suggests. I even called it in print BEFORE you or anyone else jumped on the bandwagon. It wasn't until the sample sheath auction that you guys jumped on and made an issue of it."

Now we're re-hashing it again! Unbelievable!

Really? So Hesier used multiple machines? You are a smart guy too Ron, but this is a new tidbit seemingly created to support your position. Hesier had been consistent for almost two decades to this point with most real changes occurring in the 40's. Now with the second sale of the company in 1958, there could have been changes. Hard to say, but look at the sheath on the left that Jack posted. Pattern looks pretty much the same as a sheath made in the late 40's early 50's save for the stone pouch flap, throat rivets, etc. Fact.

Hieser's leather was not only of finer finish than Johnson's on the whole, they generally maintained that for the same time period.

A footnote here, is that Johnson leather is closer to Moore than Heiser in heft. Just seems thicker. This may have something to do with geography with both makers residing in central Florida and the sourcing of hides. I am going to speculate with my uncanny powers of observation, that back in the day, Johnson did not source hides from the same tanneries as Hesier/HKL.



Ok, let us address this one sheath, which is how this started. First and foremost I will review the points again.

1. Ron you are a smart guy too and have seen many knives, and many Johnson sheaths. Now while you have focused on much earlier pieces, you know better. You mean to tell me that when you look at the #1 sheath that you don't see Johnson leather?!?! Seriously?!? C'mon man, I am losing you.
2. Not the same Ron. You can look at Johnson sheaths from the early 60's thru the 80's and see the exact same mottling as the sheath in question. Exact. Look at the front side of the belt loop. So Johnson. Not saying you won't find a Heiser with mottling, but not like the Johnson. Now I better qualify this by saying of course not all Johnson's have the mottling but it is consistent over the years.
3. I am again gonna go with seriously?!?!? No difference?
4. To use Jack's terminology, it is "Johnson-esque". Guess that means something.
5. So now I gotta look for it.
6. Probably early on Ron from the 40's period, but through the 50's these sheaths were pretty consistent. Edge finishing can slightly alter the appearance from one sheath to another, but not the overall appearance of size and shape where it is a departure from what you consider the "pattern".
7. Again, see the sheath in the photo Jack posted. Plenty of flair there. Doesn't appear it went away in the 50's.



No straws, just looking at a #1 sheath that has all the characteristics of an early Johnson, and like Jack, you are hanging your hat on stamp orientation and snap location.

Let me ask you something Ron. If somebody asked you to make a widgit, and handed you one to use as an example, would you attempt to copy it? Of course you would because more than likely you would have been directed to do so. So when Johnson had Heiser sheaths as an example, did he attempt to copy them? Of course he did, to include snap location, and maybe stamp orientation, at least initially. To think he had some sort of divine vision back in 62 and decided he was gonna relocate the snap towards the edge on his first examples is somewhat of a reach. I highly doubt when he first sat down to make some sheaths a ray of light shown upon him and he said "Oh shit, I need to move the snap!" I don't think it took him long to do so though, as it didn't take him too much longer to suggest the Baby Dot's.



Not re-hashing anything at all. You are using a blanket to cover that every early 60's BB is an HKL sheath. That is what is unbelievable. That is the same premise (it was easier) we used initially 12 -15 years ago considering all sheaths with the RMK stamp a Johnson.

Show me what YOU consider a Johnson, an EARLY Johnson BB. I presented one sheath for discussion, one that fits the bill perfectly for an early Johnson, even supported by the blade grind and stone supplied. So far I haven't seen it from Jack. Perhaps you can come up with an example. Maybe one that may be questionable in your mind. Don't get hung up on stamp orientation and snap placement.

Finally, the black #1 sheath pictured has the same orientation of stamp as the one next to it. Waaaaaaaaaa? It is a LH sheath. What that tells me is that Johnson for the most part laid out his product differently when it was stamped, not some grand decision to be different. Maybe he was left handed. Yeah that is it.

Joe,

We can sit at our computers all day and night debating the minutiae of a single sheath you posted, but there are much bigger fish to fry: How do you explain the gap between the sheaths documented going back to 1960 with the Randall stamp on the back and Gary finding Johnson in 1962? We're not talking a few sheaths or even a few hundred sheaths but thousands of sheaths! And we not talking a few weeks or a few months gap but a few years! You know Gary pretty well: Why don't you give him a call and ask him if he thinks he made a mistake about the timing of finding Johnson by a few years and let us know what he says!

Here's photos of my earliest Johnson BB sheath. Note:

1. The stitching difference between it and the many West facing logo BB sheaths.
2. The keeper placement.
3. The East facing logo.
4. The lack of edge tooling on the sides of the sheath.

A lot of people are going to be looking back at this thread for a long time. For the life of me, I don't know how you can put your reputation on the line as the new "Randall Authenticator" over an issue that is a no brainer based on the evidence that has been presented in this thread!