Victorinox 91mm Tools Evolution

[Rapidray]

 
And great photos also! 

[kamakiri]

 

Certainly before 1985, but I believe that 1983-84 is more likely to be correct. This is because it's relatively common to see a square Phillips on SAKs with the latest eyeless variant of the awl.

Part of the reason I think '82 is possible, are the quantities of round phillips found in the '80-'85 range. There are also some finer construction details in specific models I've observed which lead me to believe that it's earlier than '83 and that '82 is the pivot year. I say c. '82, but '83 is certainly possible.  I very highly doubt '84.  And keep in mind this is only for 91mm.

I've read a lot about the various posts and opinions here.  I can't say anybody else has dug deeper than you, me and jazzbass combined on the matter.

Here is what I can say about these variants:

• 1a.  square, double-cut file, no can-key; used 1951-1960.
• 1b.  square, single-cut file, no can-key; used 1960-1973.
• 2a.  unpolished square, no file, no can-key; Elinox variant: used on Elinox SAKs from 1957 until the early 1970's.
• 2b.  polished square, no file, no can-key; a relatively rare variant that was used quite briefly in the early 1970's (probably in 1971-1973; possibly in some overlap with variant 1b).
• 3.   polished square, no file, can-key; used 1973-1983.
• 4.   round, can-key; used 1983-1991.
• 5.   round, no can-key; used since 1991.

As I say...Excellent work as usual, MiniChamp!  My list is only tighter in a few spots and I express a little more uncertainly on the earlier dates.  I'd say your dates are better than a 2 year margin of error otherwise. More like one year +/-, aside from the 1960 peg and the 1951 start. 

[MiniChamp]

Excellent summary; thank you, MiniChamp.

And great photos also! 

Thanks! 

As I say...Excellent work as usual, MiniChamp!

Thanks, but...

My list is only tighter in a few spots and I express a little more uncertainly on the earlier dates.  I'd say your dates are better than a 2 year margin of error otherwise. More like one year +/-, aside from the 1960 peg and the 1951 start.

So what does your list say?    (Other than the square-round transition that was already discussed.) I will greatly appreciate you being a little more concrete. Ultimately, our best chance of getting the most accurate information is by combining our knowledge. If you have somewhat different concrete guesstimates, please say what they are. If you can provide some reasoning that would be even better. Thanks!

[Huntsman]

Added this thread - and the Vintage SAK Club thread - to the dating and identification stickie

[jnoxyd]

Exellent work MiniChamp!  Can I make a compiled picture and simplify the text a little, please?  This would be very useful for many SAK collectors.

[Rapidray]

I like this one! 

[MiniChamp]

Exellent work MiniChamp!

Thanks!   

Can I make a compiled picture and simplify the text a little, please?

Sure (it looks like you did it already  ), but I would prefer it if you replace the line that says "by MiniChamp (forum multitool.org)" with one saying

Source: https://forum.multitool.org/index.php/topic,14646.msg2041782.html#msg2041782

(where the URL is the full URL to the message with my original image files). This way potential viewers can get to the full res images along with the latest updates and precise info concerning who said/did what.

[kamakiri]

Thanks, but... So what does your list say?    (Other than the square-round transition that was already discussed.) I will greatly appreciate you being a little more concrete. 

My apologies for being unclear and not very specific.  Here's one example where I can't peg a date and think the margin of error could be more than 2 years.

For your 1a, I doubt '51 is the exact back phillips start date.  I don't know what it is or have a stipulated specific date.  All I know is that there are the crab-claw/PWAR copies that don't likely match the +PAT/'51 peg, (or the Vic stated '52) IMO.  I suspect earlier, but hard to say by how much. But there are enough variants which I've seen that make me suspect more than a year or two earlier. And I'd also say there's a single-cut variant before this...also different in form that it has and angled 'draft' toward the inner liner, much like the conical awls, but a shallower angle.

Ultimately, our best chance of getting the most accurate information is by combining our knowledge. If you have somewhat different concrete guesstimates, please say what they are. If you can provide some reasoning that would be even better. Thanks!

I completely agree about the combination of knowledge. It's why I feel I *had to* start posting about some of this at the beginning of 2019.  I already intend to share what I know...but I realize as I try to answer questions about one tool that it's really difficult to present out of order. Even kicking off my "Dating in the '70s" out of order starting with the Grand Prix inlays caused me some grief.  Sure, it's good information...but it says nothing about the process. And I think that's the important part to explain, which I believe should be explained first. The Grand Prix bit was supposed to help motivate me to get the ball rolling. Had a bit of the opposite effect.

[kamakiri]

For the 1a 'end', I think it's a bit later than '60. I have a small awl knife that looks like a revised, smaller second cut was used. I am assuming the earliest that knife could be is '61, but I think this copy is a bit later. Might be a short lived experiment in '62 or '63.

For 2b, I don't think the end is in '73 for 91mm. Knives that I suspect are late '72 already have the can key. Partly because of the relative rarity of this type, and the availability of the '1b' types that are post- PAT, I think the start may also be '72.

I think that's about as much as I can say without getting into the 'proof' and backup documentation or better explanation.

[jnoxyd]

Thanks!   
Sure (it looks like you did it already  ), but I would prefer it if you replace the line that says "by MiniChamp (forum multitool.org)" with one saying

Source: https://forum.multitool.org/index.php/topic,14646.msg2041782.html#msg2041782

(where the URL is the full URL to the message with my original image files). This way potential viewers can get to the full res images along with the latest updates and precise info concerning who said/did what.

Yes I did it already but I can delete it if you don't like it
Let's stay with your nickname on the picture, these are your work, your pictures.  I hate to see here and there Ulli's date sheets without mentioning his authority.
Sorry for misunderstanding, should I put link on the picture?? I think it is not useful: https: //forum.multitool.org/index.php/topic,14646.0.html
Maybe this works better:

[jnoxyd]

[xfile]

(Image removed from quote.)

Hi buddy，I can't see the difference between 2a and 2B，The difference is that only one side is not polished？

[Rapidray]

I believe the Phillips cut is longer but them my eyes are kinds shot! 

[kamakiri]

Hi buddy，I can't see the difference between 2a and 2B，The difference is that only one side is not polished？

Yes, in a nutshell.

[MiniChamp]

My apologies for being unclear and not very specific.

Thanks a lot for coming back with the details.

For your 1a, I doubt '51 is the exact back phillips start date.  I don't know what it is or have a stipulated specific date.  All I know is that there are the crab-claw/PWAR copies that don't likely match the +PAT/'51 peg, (or the Vic stated '52) IMO.  I suspect earlier, but hard to say by how much. But there are enough variants which I've seen that make me suspect more than a year or two earlier. And I'd also say there's a single-cut variant before this...also different in form that it has and angled 'draft' toward the inner liner, much like the conical awls, but a shallower angle.

Sounds interesting, but not really familiar. Are you sure that you are talking about 91mm SAKs? There are certainly quite a lot of 84mm SAKs with the Phillips + crab-claw can opener combination, but I don't recall seeing such 91mm SAKs.  Also, for 84mm SAKs, the file on the Phillips is always single-cut. Can you post an image of a 91mm SAK with a Phillips + crab-claw can opener?

For the 1a 'end', I think it's a bit later than '60. I have a small awl knife that looks like a revised, smaller second cut was used. I am assuming the earliest that knife could be is '61, but I think this copy is a bit later. Might be a short lived experiment in '62 or '63.

Interesting. I don't recall seeing double-cut files on small awl SAKs, but did see single-cut files on big awl SAKs.

For 2b, I don't think the end is in '73 for 91mm. Knives that I suspect are late '72 already have the can key. Partly because of the relative rarity of this type, and the availability of the '1b' types that are post- PAT, I think the start may also be '72.

From my personal observations, I cannot really say much more than early 70's. It does occur on SAKs with and without +Pat on the can opener. Also, while it's relatively rare, it doesn't seem to be rare enough to fit in just one year.

[MiniChamp]

Let's stay with your nickname on the picture, these are your work, your pictures.

Fine, I don't have any problem with that. I just think that it's more important to include the full link to the source.

Maybe this works better:
(Image removed from quote.)

Not so much. I think that the line should say:

Source: https: //forum.multitool.org/index.php/topic,14646.msg2041782.html#msg2041782

While it may be a bit ugly, it should make it much easier to actually find the source.

[kamakiri]

84mm with double-cut file:

[kamakiri]

Hard to see the angled cuts, but they're there. And they run through all the perpendicular teeth, unlike other angled cuts which both stop short and run long.

[Ivo]

Nice pics and SAK kamakiri 

[kamakiri]

From my personal observations, I cannot really say much more than early 70's. It does occur on SAKs with and without +Pat on the can opener. Also, while it's relatively rare, it doesn't seem to be rare enough to fit in just one year.

Regarding the 2b dates...In order for it to end in '73, I think there would be copies with features that are clear for that year. With clip point and black scissor spring, or new metal saw...otherwise I don't think it made it into '73.

On the start date, I do see late '71 as a possibility. Just really unlikely, IMO. I haven't seen any copies that are +PAT or 'old' scissor and mainline production.

Regarding the 'fit in one year'...I say absolutely possible and likely.  With the quantity of knives I have concentrated on the '70s, there would be far more of these in my possession if it did last longer.

Nice pics and SAK kamakiri 

Thanks, Ivo...but that Tinker is a bit of a beater! 

[jnoxyd]

I’ve checked my early 1970s, here are some of them:
Champion with 2b Phillips  (no +Pat, stainless double leaf scissors spring)


Fieldmaster with 1b Phillips and blank stamp (no +Pat, black double leaf scissors spring)

[Rapidray]

Very nice examples! 

[MiniChamp]

for 84mm SAKs, the file on the Phillips is always single-cut.

84mm with double-cut file:

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

  I guess I was wrong. After seeing your post, I looked at some of my early 84mm SAKs with a Phillips SD. While the files on most of them (particularly on those with the crab-claw can opener) are undoubtedly single-cut, I found one that looks like it's supposed to be a double-cut (that I previously considered to be a single-cut). The second cut on it is kind of shallow, so that it isn't a real cut, but there is some waviness in the teeth that corresponds to a second cut. I guess it can be called wannabe double-cut. So... It looks like, for 84mm SAKs, most of the files on the Phillips SD's are single-cut (right from the time when they started making them), but some are nevertheless double-cut. This is pretty much all that I know at this time. It's certainly worthy of further investigation, but this is outside the scope of a 91mm evolution thread.

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. Also, as far as I can tell, the Phillips SD files on 91mm SAKs with visible rivets are all double-cut. (Of course, given that single-cut files may be the result of a faulty double-cut file production, it seems very likely that a few such files can be found on 91mm SAKs. Such rare expected occurrence shouldn't really change the general picture.)

Hard to see the angled cuts, but they're there. And they run through all the perpendicular teeth, unlike other angled cuts which both stop short and run long.

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

I don't understand what you tried to say in this post (also, what kind of SAK is this?). The file on the Phillips SD in the last image looks like a damaged single-cut. Is that what it's supposed to be?

Regarding the 2b dates...

I haven't seen any copies that are +PAT or 'old' scissor and mainline production.

You should look at the following FolderBeholder thread: https://forum.multitool.org/index.php/topic,71213.0.html

Regarding the 'fit in one year'...I say absolutely possible and likely.

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). 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. 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:

• 1972-1972 (Kamakiri proposed range).
• 1971-1972 (The most recent, AFAIK, JazzBass proposed range; see https://forum.multitool.org/index.php/topic,51872.msg1632708.html#msg1632708).
• 1970-1974 (Earlier JazzBass proposed range; see https://forum.multitool.org/index.php/topic,51152.msg1534681.html#msg1534681).

[kamakiri]

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:

[jnoxyd]

Great examples, jnoxyd! 

Here are some of mine from c. '72.

3 Champions and a Master Craftsman:
(Image removed from quote.)

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

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

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 guess I was wrong. After seeing your post, I looked at some of my early 84mm SAKs with a Phillips SD. While the files on most of them (particularly on those with the crab-claw can opener) are undoubtedly single-cut, I found one that looks like it's supposed to be a double-cut (that I previously considered to be a single-cut). The second cut on it is kind of shallow, so that it isn't a real cut, but there is some waviness in the teeth that corresponds to a second cut. I guess it can be called wannabe double-cut. So... It looks like, for 84mm SAKs, most of the files on the Phillips SD's are single-cut (right from the time when they started making them), but some are nevertheless double-cut. This is pretty much all that I know at this time. It's certainly worthy of further investigation, but this is outside the scope of a 91mm evolution thread.

Moments like this are why I believe just about anything is possible...Things I would have never guessed keep showing up.

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. Also, as far as I can tell, the Phillips SD files on 91mm SAKs with visible rivets are all double-cut. (Of course, given that single-cut files may be the result of a faulty double-cut file production, it seems very likely that a few such files can be found on 91mm SAKs. Such rare expected occurrence shouldn't really change the general picture.)

I think they exist, but I don't have any and couldn't find any pics I might have saved.  But even without either 'proof', I don't see a reason why they'd make the phillips for only the 84m, for as long as I think they've been in production.  I'm guessing at least 3 years for the 84mm based on the variants that I have seen and own.

I don't understand what you tried to say in this post (also, what kind of SAK is this?). The file on the Phillips SD in the last image looks like a damaged single-cut. Is that what it's supposed to be?

It's a Champion c.'62/'63 with horn scales. The phillips is like the "I guess it can be called wannabe double-cut." of yours, I suspect. Hard to photograph, but there are diagonal cuts in each of the main teeth.

You should look at the following FolderBeholder thread: https://forum.multitool.org/index.php/topic,71213.0.html

Betcha hers is actually one of the forged '2a' style. 





I've read the thread before.  If it has any of jazzbass' posts...good chance I've read the thread.

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). 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. 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:

• 1972-1972 (Kamakiri proposed range).
• 1971-1972 (The most recent, AFAIK, JazzBass proposed range; see https://forum.multitool.org/index.php/topic,51872.msg1632708.html#msg1632708).
• 1970-1974 (Earlier JazzBass proposed range; see https://forum.multitool.org/index.php/topic,51152.msg1534681.html#msg1534681).

To be clear, I am not certain that it is a '72 start.  Could be very late '71 as I believe I have said. Even the '73 end...I believe is possible, just much less likely. When I say within a year, I mean 12 months of production, so a late '71 start and say a mid '72 end is theoretically possible.

Off the cuff, I'm tracking well over 10 changes that I would classify as 'early '70s'. Some of that is bound to bunch up pretty tight, and yes, a lot of it does in '73.  But it still leaves very tight ranges for any single change.

....

I hope I'm making some sense. I'm trying to make a timely response over a really thorough explanation.

[kamakiri]

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
(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)

 
 

That's also the 5044 reference I've been looking for!! Thanks!! 

Unfortunately, it proves one of my other crazy theories wrong about what NASA bought. 

[jnoxyd]

 
 

That's also the 5044 reference I've been looking for!! Thanks!! 

Unfortunately, it proves one of my other crazy theories wrong about what NASA bought. 

NASA may have used this catalog to order 50 Master Craftsmans

[kamakiri]

5002 Artisan     

84mm or 91mm?   


......


Look at the mistake on the 5014 Electrician...  Obviously should be 5024... 

[jnoxyd]

5002 Artisan     

84mm or 91mm?   


......


Look at the mistake on the 5014 Electrician...  Obviously should be 5024... 

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