SAK scales history thread

[McStitchy]

I thought this might be interesting to some.
It could also help dating a SAK, if we can gather more examples.

So please chime in and post your pics and dates/years please 

Here​ are three examples from me...





Spot the differences?
The early 80's opener-side scale does show a 82 inside the upper rivet hole. That does actually fit to the knifes age. Coincidence?

Again, I'd appreciate if you add your inside, examples, knowledge about this 

...or let me know if a thread like this exists already 

[VICMAN]

I thought this might be interesting to some.
It could also help dating a SAK, if we can gather more examples.

Here​ are three examples from me...

Spot the differences?
The early 80's opener-side scale does show a 82 inside the upper rivet hole. That does actually fit to the knifes age. Coincidence?

That is interesting Matt!

Thanks for posting.

[McStitchy]

That is interesting Matt!

Thanks for posting.

I'm glad you find it interesting.
I hope we can gather more examples 

[Mechanickal]

Is there a small circle with an arrow and numbers on the inside of the 2017 scales?

Edit: just saved your pic and zoomed.
There is! And it seems like it's pointing at the 17 as well

[McStitchy]

Is there a small circle with an arrow and numbers on the inside of the 2017 scales?

Edit: just saved your pic and zoomed.
There is! And it seems like it's pointing at the 17 as well

Hey, you're right. On both of the 2017 scales.
Well spotted 

[Mechanickal]

They are the scale production years.

My LE Climber Gold (2016) has got a 15 mark in it.
The advantage with translucent scales is that you can see the date mark through the scales... duh

[McStitchy]

They are the scale production years.

My LE Climber Gold (2016) has got a 15 mark in it.
The advantage with translucent scales is that you can see the date mark through the scales... duh

Duuude... I was shocked for a second 
Hmmm,  my 1991 example has no year marking 

Taking about transparent, looks like they share the same mould/form as the non-transparent scales.
See that mirrored Victorinox lettering?

[Mechanickal]

They are the scale production years.

My LE Climber Gold (2016) has got a 15 mark in it.
The advantage with translucent scales is that you can see the date mark through the scales... duh

Duuude... I was shocked for a second 
Hmmm,  my 1991 example has no year marking 

Taking about transparent, looks like they share the same mould/form as the non-transparent scales.
See that mirrored Victorinox lettering?

Yup!
Other lettering is there too.

Which only makes sense

[cbl51]

I'm glad somebody posted a picture of just how much Victorinox has cheapened the scales. Just a pale hollow shell of what the scales used to be. No wonder my tinker broke off 1/3 of the end of a scale just from falling out of a pocket onto the bathroom floor!

They need to go back to the more durable handle scale.

[ThePeacent]

I guess the newer ones weigh less, 
anybody got a number?

Pure curiosity nothing else   

[Mechanickal]

I can weigh this evening.

But given the price of their product and the lifetime waranty (which include scales) I'm willing to forgive Vic.

[McStitchy]

I guess the newer ones weigh less, 
anybody got a number?

Pure curiosity nothing else   

I don't have a fine enough scale to give you an accurate answer.
The old ones (left and middle of my pics) show 5 grams, while the new ones show 4 grams.

It seems to be neglectable.

[Frater_Martin]

LeaF has kicked me to post here
The history of changes of Victorinox handle scales is very, very complicated, foggy and complex. It may be the mistiest evolution story. I have spent (hope not wasted) more than 5 years for the data collecting and I still cannot definitively classify the scales by production/moulding years and types. Every time as soon as I decide that I had found everything I needed and I may begin to classify, I find something absolutely new. You know
Sometimes I have a feeling that several different workshops or manufactures were engaged in the moulding of the scales in parallel. At least, this can explain why knives of the same period have several different types of scales. At least, I have seen knives of the same period had fundamentally different types of the scale matrices.
Another sometimes I see that they introduce new type of moulding matrix and after some years they return to the previous one.
And besides of that, we do not need to forget about the wonder tradition of Victorinox to find and get the box with old parts out from the warehouse and use them 5 years after the introduction of new type. So we need to be very accurate to use the year of the scale moulding for the knife dating.

Anyway, I will put here my classification table here. A bit later.

And just to keep the ball rolling: look at the scale below, it was moulded in 1992. MTMatt's second scale (from 1991) has counter-clockwise calendar and this one has a clockwise type. I think, it may be interesting.

[McStitchy]

LeaF has kicked me to post here
The history of changes of Victorinox handle scales is very, very complicated, foggy and complex. It may be the mistiest evolution story. I have spent (hope not wasted) more than 5 years for the data collecting and I still cannot definitively classify the scales by production/moulding years and types. Every time as soon as I decide that I had found everything I needed and I may begin to classify, I find something absolutely new. You know
Sometimes I have a feeling that several different workshops or manufactures were engaged in the moulding of the scales in parallel. At least, this can explain why knives of the same period have several different types of scales. At least, I have seen knives of the same period had fundamentally different types of the scale matrices.
Another sometimes I see that they introduce new type of moulding matrix and after some years they return to the previous one.
And besides of that, we do not need to forget about the wonder tradition of Victorinox to find and get the box with old parts out from the warehouse and use them 5 years after the introduction of new type. So we need to be very accurate to use the year of the scale moulding for the knife dating.

Anyway, I will put here my classification table here. A bit later.

And just to keep the ball rolling: look at the scale below, it was moulded in 1992. MTMatt's second scale (from 1991) has counter-clockwise calendar and this one has a clockwise type. I think, it may be interesting.

Thanks a million Frater_Martin for your insight to this 
Looking forward to your list when attached 

[jalind]

I've been around plastics molding processes as an adjunct to my primary responsibilities in a previous life. If it's being done in considerable volume as would be expected for the 91mm and 58mm scales, the machines used are going to be large. The molds will have multiple cavities and in spite of using hardened tool steels, they wear and must be refurbished or replaced. I would expect Victorinox to have multiple molding machines with probably two, maybe three sets of molds for each. Plastics molds are expensive, and for the kind of quality Victorinox is putting out with their scales, they're very expensive. "Sinks" are nonexistent and parting lines are nearly nonexistent. Unless there's compelling reasons to immediately change a design to correct quality or other issues, it's natural that changes to the underside of the scales would be incorporated as "running changes" and that molds would be replaced with ones incorporating new designs when they wear out. In the meantime, it's very probable that more than one scales design was being made at the same time for a considerable length of time, coming off of different machines with different molds. It is possible to modify molds, but even that's not inexpensive and it's not always feasible depending on the change desired, and can introduce problems (i.e. flaws or defects) that must be fixed to put the mold back on line.

In summary, I'm not surprised at all that there's a seeming incoherence in the evolution of Victorinox's scales. I would expect there to be some kinds of markings on the underside identifying the specific mold and the specific cavity in the mold. That is standard procedure, so if there is a molding problem, the mold and cavity, or cavities, can be immediately identified, and the problem cavity or cavities at least blocked off until the mold can be taken off line to be worked on. Hope this gives some insight about standard practices regarding plastics molding processes.

John

[Mechanickal]

Makes sense!

[McStitchy]

I've been around plastics molding processes as an adjunct to my primary responsibilities in a previous life. If it's being done in considerable volume as would be expected for the 91mm and 58mm scales, the machines used are going to be large. The molds will have multiple cavities and in spite of using hardened tool steels, they wear and must be refurbished or replaced. I would expect Victorinox to have multiple molding machines with probably two, maybe three sets of molds for each. Plastics molds are expensive, and for the kind of quality Victorinox is putting out with their scales, they're very expensive. "Sinks" are nonexistent and parting lines are nearly nonexistent. Unless there's compelling reasons to immediately change a design to correct quality or other issues, it's natural that changes to the underside of the scales would be incorporated as "running changes" and that molds would be replaced with ones incorporating new designs when they wear out. In the meantime, it's very probable that more than one scales design was being made at the same time for a considerable length of time, coming off of different machines with different molds. It is possible to modify molds, but even that's not inexpensive and it's not always feasible depending on the change desired, and can introduce problems (i.e. flaws or defects) that must be fixed to put the mold back on line.

In summary, I'm not surprised at all that there's a seeming incoherence in the evolution of Victorinox's scales. I would expect there to be some kinds of markings on the underside identifying the specific mold and the specific cavity in the mold. That is standard procedure, so if there is a molding problem, the mold and cavity, or cavities, can be immediately identified, and the problem cavity or cavities at least blocked off until the mold can be taken off line to be worked on. Hope this gives some insight about standard practices regarding plastics molding processes.

John

"Hope this gives some insight about standard practices regarding plastics molding processes."

It does indeed, thanks John 

[Frater_Martin]

As it is well-known, there were three main types of the scales.
Does anybody (especially John jalind) know what was the year when one type has changed previous one? Any clarification?
I have just found that for each type of the scale they were different.

[jalind]

As it is well-known, there were three main types of the scales.
Does anybody (especially John jalind) know what was the year when one type has changed previous one? Any clarification?
I have just found that for each type of the scale they were different.

I've not any information about Victorinox's scales production, revisions and changes. My remarks were about plastics molding in general and common practices used to maintain the processes while preventing down time that would disrupt production. I'd need a closer look at the one you said was stamped. I've seen die cut plastics, but to do scales like that for SAKs doesn't seem logical to me. What made you conclude that it was stamped. There some things about the holes for the knife pivots indicative of molding.

John

[Frater_Martin]

... I'd need a closer look at the one you said was stamped. I've seen die cut plastics, but to do scales like that for SAKs doesn't seem logical to me. What made you conclude that it was stamped. There some things about the holes for the knife pivots indicative of molding.

John

Look. Firstly, look at first photo. It was taken at Victorinox museum, if I am not mistaken (found it somewhere on the internet). That is a process chart of old scales making/stamping, is not it? I am not good in German, so I used Google translation.
Secondly. Look at the second picture. The scales were taken from Huntsman 1973-1975 years production. Bottom scale has nozzle for plastic extruding and the top scale - does not have any. I have though that it was stamped. All round notches and a tweezers channel have traces of shaping/drilling (there are some details on the last photo).
Am I right?

[McStitchy]

... I'd need a closer look at the one you said was stamped. I've seen die cut plastics, but to do scales like that for SAKs doesn't seem logical to me. What made you conclude that it was stamped. There some things about the holes for the knife pivots indicative of molding.

John

Look. Firstly, look at first photo. It was taken at Victorinox museum, if I am not mistaken (found it somewhere on the internet). That is a process chart of old scales making/stamping, is not it? I am not good in German, so I used Google translation.
Secondly. Look at the second picture. The scales were taken from Huntsman 1973-1975 years production. Bottom scale has nozzle for plastic extruding and the top scale - does not have any. I have though that it was stamped. All round notches and a tweezers channel have traces of shaping/drilling (more detailed it is on the last photo).
Am I right?

Is the a better quality picture of the one from the Victorinox museum? 

[Frater_Martin]

I have only this one.

[jalind]

... I'd need a closer look at the one you said was stamped. I've seen die cut plastics, but to do scales like that for SAKs doesn't seem logical to me. What made you conclude that it was stamped. There some things about the holes for the knife pivots indicative of molding.

John

Look. Firstly, look at first photo. It was taken at Victorinox museum, if I am not mistaken (found it somewhere on the internet). That is a process chart of old scales making/stamping, is not it? I am not good in German, so I used Google translation.
Secondly. Look at the second picture. The scales were taken from Huntsman 1973-1975 years production. Bottom scale has nozzle for plastic extruding and the top scale - does not have any. I have though that it was stamped. All round notches and a tweezers channel have traces of shaping/drilling (there are some details on the last photo).
Am I right?

The museum photo shows the making of scales for the older SAKs that had rivets all the way through. It appears from the sequence of steps Vic was doing the Cellidor plastics version of "impression die forging" with heat to form the scales. One can see the flash around the edges which is essential to the process as it helps prevent voids, forcing material into all portions of the die. See this Wikipedia sub-entry about "impression die forging" with steel and you'll see the parallels. It's a combination of stamping and molding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/...ng#Impression-die_forging

It could very well be that Victorinox continued this for a while with scales that snapped onto the rivet rings when they stopped using rivets that went through the scales. Sometimes plastics will show what look like machining marks when they're actually the machining marks in the die that molded or pressed the plastics. This is often seen on plastic parts in areas that won't show when they're assembled to the finished product. The scales you photographed were made after the ones you showed at the museum display, but look like it may have been much the same process. The clue for me was the flash around the pair of scales that would have to be die cut from them. I know English is not your first language and this has technical jargon. I hope the context helps with meaning.

I need to look at the photos more and think about the most likely process steps in my mind, visualizing the manufacturing line.

Edit:
Looks as if from some of your closeups that the T&T slots may have been formed by a machine process that cut the slot. The rough texture on the underside is what one might find from an impression die process. Interesting.

John