Vintage SAK Owners Club

[kamakiri]

Hi Kamakiri!  I think it would be great if you could share your dating of the tools, backsprings and back tools changes between 1973-1983. 

Best thing I can say is that I’m working on it. 

I don’t have anything planned specifically for backsprings though. I’ve avoided somewhat writing what was supposed to be the first chapter about my philosophy and methods...which really should go first, but perhaps easiest to write last.

I also don’t want to have the issue as ulli pointed out about updates. Lack of editing ability makes posts rather final.

There is also somewhat the issue of credibility. Like in the example of the “1973” knife for sale, would I really have to point out over a dozen things to ‘show’ that it’s c.’76? I can also just ‘prove’ it’s not ‘73 with as little as the tweezer. Seriously, would that be enough? 

One chapter/topic I conceptualized would be titled “Stare ‘till it hurts”. It would only contain pictures and stipulated dates...nothing else. Like the catalogs, I’m not sure how many would appreciate the topic.

I just gotta figure out what I’ll post next. Or if I’m going to do a bit more on the catalogs with the Hoffritz ones.

A lot of small changes have been made and you need to have a large number of samples for comparison.  Not all of us have as many 1970s knives as you do, I'm sure. 

Yes, nobody else is this stupid! 

Sad thing is that I’m not done. Like ulli said, there’s always something new to learn.

Well, especially for me, please, your opinion on awl dating in the period from 1973 to 1985. Many thanks!

Don’t thank me yet!  I posted about awls in my intro thread covering that timeframe. Albeit with some omission errors...and yes it needs updating and refinement. It’s planned for more detail as a separate thread/chapter in my ‘70s series.



Here

[ulli]

Well my Elsener Zug or INOX Y D arrived today. I’m more than a little concerned that the Elsener Zug is engraved with a pen and not a stamp. If I had a keener eye I wouldn’t have bid on it. I’m hoping that someone can verify that Victorinox would have done this when they reconditioned the knife. The description on the auction said it was at Victorinox. Either that or the Zug retailer would have done that before the knife was sold. The INOX YD stamp looks legit as does the rest of the knife. The blades look reprofiled and reconditioned with a high polish. It’s smooth as glass open and closing, nickel silver liners and old looking scales. What’s everyone’s thoughts?

Thats a really cool knife, you dont have to be concerned about it. I dont know any victorinox knife with a lacking front tang stamp. So your knife is factory made, or the knifemaker elsener zug assembled them and engraved the knives with his name. That was common those days. Value I would estimate $50-80 $.
Dübendorfer was a small company from Bassersdorf: "The purpose of the company is gravel and concrete deliveries, building material recycling, industrial waste disposal, dump service and transport, management of real estate, trade in miniatures. "
Had a history over 100 years, that ended in 2012.

I have a similar knife, but instead of inoxyd it has a victoria switzerland stainless stamp on the back.

[Sterg]

Thats a really cool knife, you dont have to be concerned about it. I dont know any victorinox knife with a lacking front tang stamp. So your knife is factory made, or the knifemaker elsener zug assembled them and engraved the knives with his name. That was common those days. Value I would estimate $50-80 $.
Dübendorfer was a small company from Bassersdorf: "The purpose of the company is gravel and concrete deliveries, building material recycling, industrial waste disposal, dump service and transport, management of real estate, trade in miniatures. "
Had a history over 100 years, that ended in 2012.

I have a similar knife, but instead of inoxyd it has a victoria switzerland stainless stamp on the back.

Thanks for that info ulli. I put $102 dollars on the auction not expecting to win. I won. So I overpaid a little. I don’t feel too bad because I like it. I’m just learning about SAKs so I’ll chalk it up as a lesson learned. You have some nice examples.

[Sterg]

Ulli, what is this pattern? Officers or a bartender/waiter?

[FolderBeholder]

Thanks for that info ulli. I put $102 dollars on the auction not expecting to win. I won. So I overpaid a little. I don’t feel too bad because I like it. I’m just learning about SAKs so I’ll chalk it up as a lesson learned. You have some nice examples.

I think you paid a fair price for a knife you like.  I like it too and if I didn't have one that is similar, I would have likely paid the same.
Some folks on this forum have the luxury of being in the collecting arena so long they know how often a particular knife will come up for sale/bid.
Like you, I don't have all that time/knowledge experience so I have to go with what I like.  Enjoy that one in good health. 

[Sterg]

I think you paid a fair price for a knife you like.  I like it too and if I didn't have one that is similar, I would have likely paid the same.
Some folks on this forum have the luxury of being in the collecting arena so long they know how often a particular knife will come up for sale/bid.
Like you, I don't have all that time/knowledge experience so I have to go with what I like.  Enjoy that one in good health. 

Thank you. The knife definitely has a quality feel about it.

[ulli]

Ulli, what is this pattern? Officers or a bartender/waiter?

Its an officer knife, model nr 248k (k means small, 84 mm instead of 91 mm). It later becomes a name, the "gourmet".

[Sterg]

Its an officer knife, model nr 248k (k means small, 84 mm instead of 91 mm). It later becomes a name, the "gourmet".

Thanks

[kamakiri]

Not really sure this would help regarding the “1973” knife, but the attached pic has a comparison against two knives that are between ‘73 and ‘76. One is closer to ‘73 and the other, of course, closer to ‘76.

[kamakiri]

More comparison...Two Grands Prix variants one ‘73 and the other c.’74.

[kamakiri]

  Okay...I guess the tang size and comparison doesn’t convince. 

I can also just ‘prove’ it’s not ‘73 with as little as the tweezer. Seriously, would that be enough? 

Perhaps the tweezer might. They change in between the dates in question.

The knife in question has the latter style and the scale to fit it. Makes sense?

[kamakiri]

So I’m guessing that the silence equals acceptance regarding the “1973” knife?  The tweezer was enough proof?

Is there anyone who sees what I mean about one of the 2.7mm parts running out from the blade layer? Lots of views, but no comments.

I understand that the blade layer change alone doesn’t prove that the knife isn’t ‘73 or c.’73. But there are other tools and more importantly what I call ‘construction’ that makes the knife later. And the knife in question does not have the same construction in both parts and protocol for other Champion knives that are ‘74 and well into ‘75. So from both parts and construction/assembly the knife can not be ‘73 or c.’73.

To me, it seems to fit with Victorinox needing to take the time to figure out how or that they want to use the rest of the remaining 2.7mm parts. The solution is not unlike how knives were built when the ‘bird head’ spacers were thicker than 1mm ones used since the ‘60s.

[kamakiri]

Closer comparison might help see the thickness difference? 

This time with the blades open. “1973” knife is on the top in both crops.

[kamakiri]

Not my knife, but I think a good example of a knife that I can say 100% is c.‘73 production.

[kamakiri]

Not my knife, but I think a good example of a knife that I can say 100% is c.‘73 production.

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

Any guesses on the part that actually gives me the highest confidence regarding Chronology?  And no, it’s not the clip point. That’s my only hint. These pictures are surprisingly good in that respect. Normally, I would need the knife in hand to see the needed details.

[Reinier]

Obviously, 1973 was the only year they made half scissors as a cost cutting measure

[kamakiri]

Obviously, 1973 was the only year they made half scissors as a cost cutting measure

Well, duh. 

I’m surprised you missed the spring delete too. 

  

[ComboTool]

I fail to see how a half scissors can be a cutting measure

[kamakiri]

Not my knife, but this is an example of another clip point that is certainly not c.’73

Notice that it doesn’t have a ‘Victoria era’ backspring like noted previously in the thread.

Note the VSSR/OS tang stamps.

I hope this is clear enough proof of what I’ve been saying.

[teno_ioti]

Are this:



Vintage enought ?

Cheers!

Marcelo from Argentina

[jnoxyd]

Hello everyone!  I found that I also have a few 1970s Champions, even with whole scissors.  I thought it would be interesting to list the tool changes you know and the approximate dates.  In the pictures there are two champions pre 1973, two 1973-1974 (I believe, but you can correct me) and last two from c.1974 and late 1970s. 





Here is my list of changes we can see on knives above, correct and add it please!
 1. Let's list well known 1973 changes together:
 - introduction of a magnifying glass and phillips
 -scissors now without LNF and, accordingly, on the opposite side of the main blade
 -a new kind of metal saw / file plus a small flat screwdriver on its back
 -ruler on hook extractor
 - introduction of a corkscrew with 4 turns
 -reduction of the thickness of the main blade from 2.7 to 2.4mm
 -changing the type of spring of blades
 - missing Victoria Officier's Suisse crossbow stamp
 - introduction of clip point small blade
 2. Scissors model 1952 with a single spring - until 1973
 3. Transit scissors (late 1960s) with long groove, double spring, blunt ends -  until 1973 or 1974?
 4. Scissors with short groove, double spring, small spring attachment hole and screw, blunt ends 1973(?) - 1974(?)
 5. Scissors with double thinner spring, large spring hole and screw, sharp ends 1975-1991
 6. Thick liner between metal saw and wood saw - since ?
 7. Additional full liner without cutouts (see Champion on the right) - since ?
 8. Notch at the end of the metal saw/wood saw spring 1979?
 9. Changing the shape of the wood saw end - 1979?
 10. Blank main blade stamp- 1973-1974?
 11. Officier's Suisse crossbow stamp - since 1974 or 1975?

[Rizio Il Ghiro]

Wow - what a collection!

[kamakiri]

Now it looks like we’re getting somewhere! 

But I noticed that the knife in position ‘5’ changes in the bottom pic.  (see attached)

I could use one shot of all 6 from the top tools closed to confirm some things. Perhaps I will wait to ask for more, because several tool details are ‘hidden’ to me with the provided views.

But my guesses for the dates are:

c.’71.75
c.’72.25
c.’73.25
c.’73.5
c.’74.25
Last one...tough to dial in at all and should be the easiest. ‘79ish? Looks like the scaler got the saw backspring or the same stamping.  Mod/repair?

[kamakiri]

Here is my list of changes we can see on knives above, correct and add it please!
 1. Let's list well known 1973 changes together:
 - introduction of a magnifying glass and phillips
 -a new kind of metal saw / file plus a small flat screwdriver on its back

I think these are pretty clear for start dates. I used to think the back driver was c.‘72, but less so recently.

-scissors now without LNF and, accordingly, on the opposite side of the main blade

Perhaps yes...the end date for main line knives and Champions...but not all.

-ruler on hook extractor

I think very late ‘72 for these. But early ‘73 is certainly possible. There is the example of the 146fmaU with the short-lived early font. I have this in main line and Hoffritz variants.

- introduction of a corkscrew with 4 turns
 -reduction of the thickness of the main blade from 2.7 to 2.4mm
 -changing the type of spring of blades
 - missing Victoria Officier's Suisse crossbow stamp
 - introduction of clip point small blade

I caution combining the start/introduction dates with the end dates.
2.7mm layer parts were used later than ‘73, and as I’ve been trying to show, MIXED with 2.4mm parts.
Look at how some parts were introduced as 2.7mm, like the 4 loop CS when seen with clip points...

2. Scissors model 1952 with a single spring - until 1973
 3. Transit scissors (late 1960s) with long groove, double spring, blunt ends -  until 1973 or 1974?
 4. Scissors with short groove, double spring, small spring attachment hole and screw, blunt ends 1973(?) - 1974(?)

I think the relevant starts are ‘51, c.’70
The gap machining is transitional, and varies quite a bit. I haven’t ‘assigned’ a date to the first major variation of the gap size. There is more progression of sorts if you look for it, as well as many other observable traits. Some that are shared with the “1951” when their use overlaps.

 

5. Scissors with double thinner spring, large spring hole and screw, sharp ends 1975-1991

I think later start. c.’77 late or 2nd half ‘76 at the very earliest, from what I can tell.

6. Thick liner between metal saw and wood saw - since ? 

From what I can tell, depends on the model. Note that later, it shows up on knives with either saw. Like in later Grands Prix and Campers.

7. Additional full liner without cutouts (see Champion on the right) - since ?

Look at the “1973” auction knife. Hint, hint.

8. Notch at the end of the metal saw/wood saw spring 1979?
 9. Changing the shape of the wood saw end - 1979?

these two go together. The surprise for me was the scaler with the bump. Not sure if yours is an error or perhaps a running change that I did not spot or own.

 

10. Blank main blade stamp- 1973-1974?

I think a later end date.

11. Officier's Suisse crossbow stamp - since 1974 or 1975?

Ditto on this start date.

[MiniChamp]

Not my knife, but this is an example of another clip point that is certainly not c.’73

Notice that it doesn’t have a ‘Victoria era’ backspring like noted previously in the thread.

Note the VSSR/OS tang stamps.

I hope this is clear enough proof of what I’ve been saying.

The occurrence of clip point pen blades on SAKs with a 2.4mm blades layer is well known. Here is what JazzBass wrote about it more than eight years ago:

The earliest 2.4mm blade knives seem to come in two flavors: plain back main + spear point pen blade, or "Officier Suisse" back/clip point pen. I have no idea which of these are the older of the two. Plain back 2.4mm blades are more common to see than plain back 2.7mm blades. Mid-late 70s they evolve into the common "Officier Suisse"/spear point pen that you see until the change in 2004.

This is quite different from the following:

2.7mm layer parts were used later than ‘73, and as I’ve been trying to show, MIXED with 2.4mm parts.

You have been circling around something here for about ten posts with quite a few images and I still don't understand what is your EXACT claim. Are you trying to say that they installed 2.4mm blades on SAKs with 2.7mm springs? If so, why can't you just express it in clear language. If you are claiming something else, I cannot even guess what it is. So, what exact mixture (or mixtures) of parts are you referring to? Also, are your claims based on SAKs in your possession or on things that you believe to be seeing in images like the ones that you posted here?

[kamakiri]

Well, now I understand the source and manner of the confusion.

I’m trying too hard to bridge small gaps in understanding of the chronology, where larger gaps exist.

I don’t think explaining further is going to help right now. At least not without a massive effort on my part.

The main thing I’d assert is as I said...that the “1973” knife in question isn’t 1973 or even c.’73. The tweezers alone prove that. I probably should have stopped right there to avoid further confusion.

[MiniChamp]

Well, now I understand the source and manner of the confusion.

I doubt it.

I’m trying too hard to bridge small gaps in understanding of the chronology, where larger gaps exist.

I don’t think explaining further is going to help right now.

I tend to agree.

The tweezers alone prove that.

I wonder what do the tweezers "prove" in the attached image.

I probably should have stopped right there to avoid further confusion.

Not much real confusion here. I think that quite a lot has been clarified.

[kamakiri]

I doubt it.

Well, that’s what you do.

I’ll give you one more thing to doubt. Your dates for the Hoffritz catalogs you posted are closer to the ‘end’ dates for thier use. Particularly the “1974” and “1979” copies. The included price sheets are likely the last ones used for those. The “1979” copy was likely in use by ‘77. 

The irony here is that you’re doubting my claim that the “1973” Super Knife (Champion) isn’t built c.’76. If I’m wrong, then why the heck isn’t it in the “1974” catalog or the one you call “1977”?

FWIW, and I’m sure you’ll doubt something else here...but I have lots of Hoffritz knives from the entire 1970s range to support this. As well as the main line counterparts or ‘twins’ (where available because of models like the 136kmaU). More specifically, enough knives of all product lines that date separately to ‘73 and ‘74...to know 100% that the auction knife isn’t 1973 or even c.’73.

But I see now that I can’t convince you of subtle or minor differences when you don’t seem to have the major ones well sorted. You doubt that the majority of knives can be dated to within a year. And for that I can only feel sorry for you.

The snark about the tweezers, I actually appreciate. But I think you take your fixed opinions far too seriously. Loosen up. You just might learn something. Even if by accident.

Not much real confusion here. I think that quite a lot has been clarified.

I doubt that.

 

[MiniChamp]

You just might learn something.

Why do you think that anyone can learn anything from you when you refuse to answer questions or to otherwise provide explanations that involve any concrete details? In fact, it looks like you specifically avoid concrete details like they were some kind of a taboo. Why is that? Let's try this again; a simple concrete question:

What kind of main blade is installed on what you called the "1973" auction knife?

Clearly, any person can give one of the following three answers: 2.4mm, 2.7mm or "I don't know." What is your answer? I'm guessing that you will not be willing to answer this question. Prove me wrong.

P.S. Since you seem to like communicating this way, I attach images of two of my SAKs. Can you see what I mean? 

[kamakiri]

That’s nuts. You’re essentially challenging me to answer my own question.