Sam,

I think it's obvious to everyone now that the emperor has no clothes on. There's not much that hasn't been said more then once. Let's let it go now.

Thanks,

Ron

Ron, while wise council, I am not quite ready to "let it go".

I would like Joe to answer one previously asked question.




___

OK. I have to admit, Joe can't answer that question, because there is no established actual provenance.

Maybe he can answer this easier one.

Joe stated:



Joe, if its not inclusive of baby dots, which is the known sheaths for comparison, how would you possibly be able to discern the differences in bb sheaths that you think were made by Johnson, from HKL? Especially when HKL's were different from earlier Heisers too.

It would be hard enough to discern the HKL from the earlier Heisers, had they not had the Heiser stamp just before the transition to RMK stamp. When HKL took over, a lot changed with those sheaths.

So without baby dots, how do you establish your reference line?

What are you comparing those bb sheaths to, to establish Johnson made? Just because they are different? So what? Early HKL's were different too.

Sam, Ron is wise so please drop it. Let's end this. You're not gonna change Joe and he isn't gonna change you.......you're a good man Sam let's let it go.

While the Jester sits on the sideline..................

This one is for you buddy. You have earned it. Have I said how much I love this one?



Forging ahead......





Sam,

I thought we were gonna be blessed with your absence for the weekend, but alas, it appears that we just aren't that lucky. Don't tease us and do that again by getting our hopes up just to take the wind out of our sails. Many of us here feel violated. It was like getting punched in the stomach. We were counting' on you man!

On a more serious note, just about everything in your quote above is incorrect. Little to nothing changed between Heiser and HKL. Photos are your friend. The only thing that I have discussed with a couple other guys is possibly a slight reduction in consistency/quality towards the end.

As one more point of evidence that you just don't pay attention to what you read, from my thread in the preface of the summary:



so, I am going to use simple language and as many monosyllabic words as possible so there is no mistaking what I am saying.

Johnson baby dot sheaths are "patterned" after johnson brown button sheaths, NOT the other way around as you are suggesting by your comments.

Therfore, although an HKL copy, Johnson BB sheaths had their own "style" or "look" different and discernible from HKL sheaths at the get go. Not after the relocation of the keep snap. Not after a change of stamp orientation. Not after serif numbers. From the beginning of his involvement with RMK. There is ample evidence in the photos, evidence that both Ron and yourself ignore.

I am gonna give you one last little history lesson Sam, but this is it. I know your mentor is gonna read it so all is good.

CJ Moore sheaths for the Zacharias and subsequent fighters are the benchmark. A Moore sheath was the pattern for three other makers. HH Heiser and Southern Saddlery directly, and Mosser indirectly.

Heiser made a copy and while the Moore influence was evident, it was visibly different from the Moore but had some of the same "traits" - that word you seem to have a problem with. Heiser morphed in short order into what was the Heiser sheath most are familiar with.

Southern Saddlery made a reasonably close copy that many still will mistake for a Moore, but you can tell the difference readily once you know the difference.

Mosser used a Southern Saddlery sheath as a pattern so it is one removed from a Moore, but still has a strong resemblance and is very, very close to the SS. Many folks can't tell the difference to this day.

Understand that only Heiser of the four makers had any markings, stamps, numbers, etc. to give anyone and indication who made it!! You use "traits" and "characteristics" that vary between the manufacturers like stitching, leather, rivets, finish, etc. You have to KNOW what you are looking at to determine the maker, particularly with Mosser and SS. The Heiser logo was on the back of the earliest Moore influenced copies, so you of course can't see it w/o flipping the sheath over. Sound familiar?

The point I am making is that one maker influenced three, and some of the copies were very good. The same applies to Heiser/HKL which influenced only one in Maurice Johnson. He initially made copies that had many "traits" of his patten HKL sheaths but they were/are overall visibly different, differences that are shown very well in my photo "essay". Johnson morphed in short order into what was the Johnson sheath most are familiar with.

So one sheath maker in the early 1940's can influence three to make decent copies, copies good enough that some folks still have problems identifying the different makers. Yet one maker in the early 1960's can't influence only one other maker to make a decent copy?

There is and never has been any disagreement of what Heiser/HKL did as far as stamps, keepers, etc. We all know that well. So let's not muddy the water with that. The disagreement is what MJ did when he showed up in 1962. Again, photos are your friend.

Why you, your mentor, and whoever else may think that a stamp or serif number, or any other morsel you guys fixate on overrides any other consideration is beyond me. I can see the difference between an HKL and MJ plain as day. So can others that have done so in the threads. Perhaps you can't but your mentor just doesn't want to. At this point I don't care what you can or can't do.