Quote from: Gareth on October 21, 2009, 01:26:04 AMThat's certainly one mixed up SAK. No kidding. It's an odd but interesting knife. Not the least of the issues are that no one knows what to call it or has a picture of it in a catalog. The Deluxe Climber name I got from SmartKnives, which is as good a guess as any really. Here's a pic showing the grooved corkscrew, hook, and screw-joint scissors. Since I got this knife, I've gotten several others that have the hook/scissors screw combination including an Deluxe Tinker, Explorer, Climber and a Ranger. All of them have the guide groove in the scissors. The Deluxe Climber however, shown here, is the only one of these with a fully grooved corkscrew. (Image removed from quote.)
That's certainly one mixed up SAK.
Sometimes the "groove" is much more pronounced or at least it seems that way. BTW that is my photo I took of an early 91mm Golfer. This one has the same tools as an 84mm golfer but it adds the ink pen/plus scales without adding the stick pin hole. Later on the plus scales had the stick pin hole added and history was made. Now everyone wants "Plus" scales on everything! I like "Plus" scales too. Wish they were in 84mm size as well.
SAAM's 91 mm Tools Evolution - http://archive.is/DxkPFThis archive page instead of lost victorinox.saam007.com/91mmtools.phpAnd http://forum.knives.pl/index.php/topic,117768.0.html replace part of the lost victorinoxpage.com
There is also a small change to the fish-scaler after the rules were added: the 7 1/2 mm mark dropped.
Then there is the shuffle of tools on larger Officers as in these photos:
Jazzbass, you must have a nail-nickless LNF (or two?) in your collection but I have never seen one - even on a post-2004 european Traveller. Maybe yours is a factory error - QC slip ? How is such an nailfile opened? Wish the back-side Long Nail File was still on the Officers that don't have a front-side metal saw/file. Would trade the parcel hook for it any day.
So why wake it up now? First, to celebrate the 10th birthday of SAAM's 91mm Tools Evolution site. Second, to try to find out if SAAM's site is essentially a static document that will never be modified, or that there is still a possibility for it to get improved. Is there? Anyone knows?
Nice work MC.
Updating this thread or the Work in the Wiki thread would be good for discussions/updatesShould we add this thread to the SAK identification sticky post - I reckon so
Thanks! Good point about the sticky post. Without such an appropriate link, this thread wouldn't be a good place to discuss SAK evolution.Anyway, I'd like to point out what I consider to be the most significant "bug" in the current version of SAAM's 91mm Tools Evolution site. It's the year listed for the transition from a 5-loops fluted corkscrew to a 4-loops fluted corkscrew. As is well known, this is one of the many changes that occurred around 1973, but SAAM's site lists it as occurring in 1983. I've seen quite a few MTO posts where this error seems to confuse people. I suspect that it's essentially a typo.
Now I can recommend his site to new SAK collectors without saying every time "it's good for dating but 4 loop corcscrew started in 1973"
Good news I've asked SAAM again about "corckscrew bug" and he found ability to fix it.
to try to find out if SAAM's site is essentially a static document that will never be modified, or that there is still a possibility for it to get improved. Is there? Anyone knows?
Wow! Cool! Thanks for making it happen, Jnoxyd! I guess I got an answer. Now I'm not really sure how I'm supposed to feel about all this. Happy that the most significant bug got fixed or disappointed that my image of backside Phillips screwdriver variants wasn't adopted. C'est la vie, I guess.
I'd rather have the dates fixed. I have the 'square' phillips ending c. '82.