Victorinox 91mm Tools Evolution

[Rapidray]

Great examples, jnoxyd! 

Here are some of mine from c. '72.

3 Champions and a Master Craftsman:

The ones from above with phillips, c. '71/'72 146fmaU Champion, c. '72 146fmaU Champion, c. '72 136maUMaster Craftsman:

The c. '72 146fmaU Champion, c. '72 136maUMaster Craftsman c. '73 136fmaU (Master?) Craftsman:

Great looking SAK’s 

[Rapidray]

Oh, my lovely Champions in different versions , thanks for sharing, Kamakiri!
I think we can call '73 136fmaU just Craftsman although less complicated model without fish tool still has old name Master Craftsman. Victorinox had to learn from Hoffrits how to name new models

 

[kamakiri]

I think Artisan is 91mm according the price and yes, you are right about 5024 😆

   91mm...That does make more sense!  Now the SAKWiki REALLY needs some updates/fixin! 

[kamakiri]

You may be right, but I suspect that your estimates might be based on assumptions that are not necessarily correct, like assuming that Victorinox only uses one tool version at a time across all it's models. I believe that it doesn't really work this way and for this particular variant, I'm under the impression that it was used on some models (notably on Champions) at the same time when version 1b was used on other models (notably on Fishermen).

I've gotta say I wouldn't do that...there's a long history of old tools used concurrently with the new versions. Even with main line production...and it's certainly true when advertising and Hoffritz are included. I do believe that some changes have been made in pretty broad moves that bridge all main line models and types.  I do have a tendency to treat things like that like a common rung on separate ladders.

Another issue is that their transitions seem to take time, so if they stop making a tool variant in mid-1972, say, I expect to find it on some SAKs that are produced well into 1973, if not later.

I think this one transition wouldn't take any time at all.  Even finished back phillips could have been pulled from production and re-tooled very easily. I'm not saying this was done, but it could have.  There's nothing difficult about adding the key cut.

Ultimately, aside from being in line with my limited observations, I like the 1971-1973 guesstimate also because it covers, within an error margin of +/- one year, all of the following:

Sure, stating the larger range covers more time.  I just feel based on my observations that such a 'conservative' view and estimate is not needed in this case.

----


Perhaps I should ask: If a can-key was found on a knife from '72, what would it look like?

Show content

This is what I think it would look like:



Main thing there for me is the scraper on the caplifter.  The rest seems pretty obvious to me.  Sure, it could be very early like Q1 '73...but I sincerely doubt it.

.

[MiniChamp]

I do believe that some changes have been made in pretty broad moves that bridge all main line models and types.

Hard to be certain, IMO. I do believe that transitions involving multiple parts tend to be relatively sharp. When they changed the thickness of the main blade shank from 2.7mm to 2.4mm, for example, this also involved changing the spring and the corresponding backside tool (corkscrew or Phillips SD). I think that you will never find a pre-3 variant of the backside Phillips SD on a SAK with a 2.4mm main blade shank, because they never made such variants that would fit. When a transition involves a single fully interchangeable part, however, the older parts tend to keep getting used in overlap with the new ones.

There are actually two non-interchangeable types of variant 3 of the backside Phillips SD. The first appeared towards the end of the Victoria era and has a 2.7mm shank. I expect that it was used in some overlap with both variant 2b and variant 1b (because they were all interchangeable). The second has a 2.4mm shank and was introduced along with the corresponding main blades (this should be the only square backside Phillips SD that you will find along with these newer blades).

Perhaps I should ask: If a can-key was found on a knife from '72, what would it look like?

This is what I think it would look like:

(Image removed from quote.)

I happen to have a similar Grand-Prix. The only difference is that mine has the older big-gap scissors. I believe it to be from "around 1973." For me this essentially means 1972-1974. I tend to be skeptical about anyone's ability to date SAKs with an error margin of less than a year (except, maybe, a small number of very special cases). Nevertheless, I'm curious how you would date the two Victoria craftsmen in the attached image (sorry about the quality). I believe them to be from "around 1973" as well. Both have the same standard-gap scissors with a black spring. The only differences are as follows: The upper one has the can-key Phillips (variant 3) and a scraper on the cap-lifter. The lower one has a file on the Phillips (variant 1b) and no scraper on the cap-lifter.

[kamakiri]

Hard to be certain, IMO.

Yes, but I'm not sure why you'd pick that as an example.  Those are reasons why they had parts for both protocols around for so long. 

I happen to have a similar Grand-Prix. The only difference is that mine has the older big-gap scissors. I believe it to be from "around 1973." For me this essentially means 1972-1974.

You're avoiding the question a bit.  The knife has *everything* I'd expect from a knife from '72.  Or late '72, to be more precise.

Knives that I would put in '73 would then have the black spring, drop the scraper and a few more differences that happen within '73.  And if this knife isn't '72 and somewhere in Q1 '73, then my guess would be that *yours* is '72.  I'd like to see yours, both sides 'exploded' like the Grand Prix I posted.

I tend to be skeptical about anyone's ability to date SAKs with an error margin of less than a year (except, maybe, a small number of very special cases).

There are lots of little windows of time where many here should be able to date knives within the year. Like with the various changes that happen *in* '85 with the backside tools. JMO, but the chisel is the only one I think could be early '86.

In the '70s I think I can peg most of it within a year with models that have enough tools or the right tools to date near the window in question.  The hardest for me to separate are in the +PAT range where the most changes were with the scissors, and I believe the LNF versions follow a slightly different timeline.

And to split something that is '78 or '79...I'd need a wood saw to be certain between the two.

Nevertheless, I'm curious how you would date the two Victoria craftsmen in the attached image (sorry about the quality). I believe them to be from "around 1973" as well. Both have the same standard-gap scissors with a black spring. The only differences are as follows: The upper one has the can-key Phillips (variant 3) and a scraper on the cap-lifter. The lower one has a file on the Phillips (variant 1b) and no scraper on the cap-lifter.

Show me 4 pictures of each. Front and Back exploded, top and bottom with the tools closed.  I can see what I need to see that way.

I often choose to buy knives from strange and crappy pictures, but 'low quality' is still an understatement here.  I can't even see the markings on the lower scaler.

[jnoxyd]

Hi MiniChamp, is it good now?

[MiniChamp]

Hi MiniChamp, is it good now?
(Image removed from quote.)

Yes!    Cool!    Thanks! 

[jnoxyd]

Yes!    Cool!    Thanks! 

[MiniChamp]

I'd like to see yours, both sides 'exploded' like the Grand Prix I posted.

Ouch!     That will never happen. I don't put my SAKs in such strained positions (maximal strain on the blades layer spring, in particular).

Show me 4 pictures of each. Front and Back exploded, top and bottom with the tools closed.

Sorry, but aside from the fact that I never put my SAKs in overly strained positions (I try to avoid having more than one half-open tool in a layer), I don't have the time to take pictures right now. Best I can do is provide some original eBay sale images that I kept from when I bought these SAKs (attached). The first two show the upper SAK (in the previous image) and the last two show the lower SAK. I guess you need to take my word that in the lower SAK the cap-lifter has no scraper and the scissors spring is black.

[kamakiri]

Ouch!     That will never happen. I don't put my SAKs in such strained positions (maximal strain on the blades layer spring, in particular).

  Fair enough.  I rarely ever do the same for the same reasons. I cringe a bit when I do. Closed top and bottom for starters, and each tool front and back,  one at a time if need be. PM or separate thread if you don't want to clutter this one too much.

Sorry, but aside from the fact that I never put my SAKs in overly strained positions (I try to avoid having more than one half-open tool in a layer), I don't have the time to take pictures right now. Best I can do is provide some original eBay sale images that I kept from when I bought these SAKs (attached). The first two show the upper SAK (in the previous image) and the last two show the lower SAK. I guess you need to take my word that in the lower SAK the cap-lifter has no scraper and the scissors spring is black.

When you can take the pics...works for me. Closed top and bottom will still help to confirm a couple of things.

That said, I think the knife from Bill (green background) is '73 and on the early side.  And if black springs actually start in late '72, this is what it would look like.  I think before the other knife for a few reasons - two which I can see, but I'd still like to see from the top and bottom view tools closed for both to make direct comparisons with shots taken from the same camera/lighting/etc. I think the 1b phillips is the old part which is being 'disposed' at this time in this case.  I haven't seen that from the scrapers and aside from the earlier periods where they were supposedly temporarily deleted.  I think this knife is '73 too just after the scrapers were gone for good.     

I know there are some things that may seem to be the 'same' to most, but I would call different. Just as one example...the shields on the scales are totally different, right? Look at them side by side, and the one from Bill has thicker elements. Pretty simple to see, once you're looking at it with that in mind.  To me, even small differences provide value when comparing any two knives.                                                                                             

[MiniChamp]

I know there are some things that may seem to be the 'same' to most, but I would call different.

This is not the issue here. The big question for me is how do you calibrate? That is, how do you know anything?

If you are going to meaningfully date SAKs with quarter-year resolution, you should start by defining precisely what it means for a SAK to be from a specified date. What is this date?

• The date when production of the last of its components was completed?
• The date when its assembly was completed?
• The date when it passed quality control?
• The date when it left the factory?
• The date when it reached a distributor?
• The date when it reached a retailer?
• Something else?

Some of these dates may be years apart.

Once you define what you mean by a SAK being from a specified date, I would greatly appreciate you picking up any concrete change from the early 1970's that you believe to be able to time within a narrow window and explaining what is the evidence that places this change within this time window. Note that you cannot use the argument that it occurred a little before or after some other change whose timing you don't explain. Ultimately, you need to calibrate nearby changes by something.

My point is this: In the 1980's, for example, there are a lot special SAKs with known years of introduction (like the 1984 Jubilee SAKs and the battle series). They provide important dating information, no doubt, and help to time many changes. Even so, it's not really clear how long before their release they were produced and how similar this gap is to the corresponding gap for regular line SAKs. Hence, some uncertainty remains. In the 1970's, on the other hand, you don't really have this type of information, so how do you know that anything really happened when you think that it did?

[kamakiri]

That is, how do you know anything?

Excellent question. I've been mulling over how to explain that for my 'Dating in the '70s' series.  And honestly, I find the whole thing a bit difficult to explain it all.  And that's a big part of why I'm participating in this discussion with you. Otherwise, there's value to me in even trying to make things clear to one who is skeptical that this can be done at all.

This is not the issue here. 

I completely disagree on this point.  It is a big reason why I'm not exactly sure how much of the process and details that I want to 'publish'.  The details that people generally don't see or just ignore can certainly be backup proof for many significant milestones, markers, pegs or whatever to call them. It's easy to argue against the minutia, but it has proven valuable to me. All of it.  Devil is in the detail when creating more resolution with the data.

The big question for me is how do you calibrate?

Lots of ways. And then question them all. Prove anything I *think* I know with solid examples.

The full explanation is long. The short answer is more philosophical. Let the pegged dates be flexible. Even the 'known' ones.  Prove the chronology/ordinal nature of the changes. Move the pegs as needed as data comes in. Learn what to exclude. Learn how to use what was excluded.

Perhaps another way to express it quickly is with the relevant math.  I can track 'well over' say 40 distinct changes in a period of 10 years. Even though some are closely grouped together, there is more than enough resolution to break up the individual years.  Add in even just a few qualities that have a progressive nature and the resolution just gets better.   

Back to your Craftsman examples, though, without letting me see the little details, you really prevent the process quite a bit especially considering that there is a part that 'must be' out of the norm.  As I said above, I think that part is the 1b phillips.  I need some of the other details to confirm. 

If you are going to meaningfully date SAKs with quarter-year resolution, you should start by defining precisely what it means for a SAK to be from a specified date. What is this date?

• The date when production of the last of its components was completed?
• The date when its assembly was completed?
• The date when it passed quality control?
• The date when it left the factory?
• The date when it reached a distributor?
• The date when it reached a retailer?
• Something else?

Some of these dates may be years apart.

The theoretical focus for me is time of assembly. This is why I always reference 'production' dates.  I'm well aware of the issues past that point.

Once you define what you mean by a SAK being from a specified date, I would greatly appreciate you picking up any concrete change from the early 1970's that you believe to be able to time within a narrow window and explaining what is the evidence that places this change within this time window. Note that you cannot use the argument that it occurred a little before or after some other change whose timing you don't explain. Ultimately, you need to calibrate nearby changes by something.

The easiest one is +PAT. It is my belief that mainline production of these ends 20 years from the application date. +/- a few months from that seems very reasonable to me.

One of the most useful in the '70s is the change to the larger scissor screw. It is my current estimate that this is a 76Q4 change.

My point is this: In the 1980's, for example, there are a lot special SAKs with known years of introduction (like the 1984 Jubilee SAKs and the battle series). They provide important dating information, no doubt, and help to time many changes. Even so, it's not really clear how long before their release they were produced and how similar this gap is to the corresponding gap for regular line SAKs. Hence, some uncertainty remains. In the 1970's, on the other hand, you don't really have this type of information, so how do you know that anything really happened when you think that it did?

Actually, I learned something very specific from the '84 Jubilee knives. And I'm pretty sure they were produced in late '83.

Data like that in the '70s comes from many sources. Advertising knives with anniversary dates, personalized gifts and such.  I certainly realize that these are 'end' dates and that the knives in question can only be proof of production for some undetermined time before. 

-------

Now, can you just humor me with the pictures that I requested?   

I can even boil the request down to two pictures: Top and bottom, closed tools with both knives in both pics.

[jnoxyd]

Double cut file on 84mm from 1950s. Shown in FB group

[Rapidray]

Very nice duo! 

[kamakiri]

Nice example! We probably need an 84mm Tools Evolution thread!

[kamakiri]

Back to 91mm: Since I don't recall ever seeing a 91mm SAK with a Phillips + crab-claw can opener combination (and since you didn't say anything on that), I believe that if such SAKs exist, they are very rare. Hence, it seems extremely unlikely to me that 91mm SAKs with a Phillips SD existed (other than prototypes, maybe) at any time before 1950.

The problem with this logic is that it assumes pretty heavily that Phillips were as numerous as corkscrews when they first went into production. With 84mm crab claw knives, it seems pretty clear that they were less than say 20% of total production in that timeframe...perhaps less than 10%.

I was pretty sure I've seen them on 91mm...this one is from a post by jnoxyd earlier this year:



Not sure if it's his...a friend's...or just a pic that was archived. 

-----


Regarding the type designations, I think the '2a' phillips should really be '1b' and the '1b' should be '1c' based on the forging and metallurgy and chronologically when they first show up.  Perhaps 1a and 1b should actually be placeholders 'pwar' and post '51 versions that should have the angled draft. 2a should be the no can-key and 2b should be the can key, etc.

I also don't know if I mentioned that my US.PAT.PEND 84mm is double cut too.

-----


I'm just gonna throw this out there...has anyone considered that the 1b style could have also been used on purpose between the 2b and 3?  Two unrelated production changes I'm tracking point in this direction. I expect use of the 1b type after that was to dispose of existing stock in advertising and Hoffritz knives.

[Ivo]

Double cut file on 84mm from 1950s. Shown in FB group
(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)

They are soooo nice 

[Rapidray]

Nice one Kamakiri 

[MiniChamp]

I was pretty sure I've seen them on 91mm...this one is from a post by jnoxyd earlier this year:

(Image removed from quote.)

  This image shows an 84mm (more precisely, 83mm) SAK, so...?!?!?! 

Regarding the type designations, I think the '2a' phillips should really be '1b' and the '1b' should be '1c'...

The core 1-5 type designations come from SAAM's 91mm Tools Evolution site. I doubt if it would be a good idea to introduce incompatible type designations that are based on a different methodology.

[Frater_Martin]

Hi guys. I am going to fresh a bit this thread talking about modern variant of the Ph SD (v.5 by this thread classification).
As I have detected there were two sub-variants of it (5a and 5b )
Profile of 5a variant (it is green at the picture below) had different convergent angle of the planes, smooth tip of the SD. The tip of 5b variant (it is red at the picture) is flat like tiny cross, and has another variant of planes convergent angle.
At the photo you can see both variants of SD: modern one (5a) is on the left side, the most modern one (5b) is on the right. Maybe the photo is not presentable enough, but in reality you can distinguish them easily if you compare two knives next to each other.
As I could detect, the conversion happened approx. in 2002-2005. At the least, I have not seen 5a SD on knives produced later than 2005 and 5b one before 2002.