Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
+-

Hello Lurker! Remove this ad and much more by logging in.


Bijou confusion 318

Sr. Member Posts: 407 Wanted: Red Alox Tinker!!
Bijou confusion
« on: April 22, 2019, 08:54:57 PM »
I recently picked up a Bijou (fingernail cleaner model) with a four line tang stamp: Victorinox/Switzerland/Stainless.Rostrei. But the reverse tang stamp is a crossbow and Victoria (1943-1970). That tang mark should indicate pre 1970, but Sakwiki says the Bijou was first made in 1980. Help - I don't understand how it can be both???
Rich

1.67 kB | 87x81
« Last Edit: April 22, 2019, 09:16:18 PM by Rich S »

------------------
There's intelligent life in the universe;
I just don't know where.
Absolutely No Life Club Posts: 6,871
Re: Bijou confusion
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2019, 10:14:16 PM »
I recently picked up a Bijou (fingernail cleaner model) with a four line tang stamp: Victorinox/Switzerland/Stainless.Rostrei. But the reverse tang stamp is a crossbow and Victoria (1943-1970). That tang mark should indicate pre 1970, but Sakwiki says the Bijou was first made in 1980. Help - I don't understand how it can be both???
Rich


Go to this URL for Sakwiki...https://www.sakwiki.com/tiki-index.php?page=Victorinox+Swiss+Army+Knife+Catalogs

It shows Victorinox catalogs....look at the 1970's Victorinox US Catalogue-35 models page 5 and you will see a Bijou on the left hand side...


I have not checked all the older catalogs, but this shows that the Bijou was out in the 70's at least

Your Bijou might be a 1970 model
« Last Edit: April 22, 2019, 10:30:14 PM by VICMAN »
Sr. Member Posts: 407 Wanted: Red Alox Tinker!!
Re: Bijou confusion
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2019, 10:59:51 PM »
Thanks, I guess Sakwiki needs some updating. Also forgot to mention it is an advertising piece "Ship by Southern Railway System" incised in gold script.
This makes it my 64th SAK.

Rich

------------------
There's intelligent life in the universe;
I just don't know where.
Absolutely No Life Club Posts: 6,871
Re: Bijou confusion
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2019, 11:09:31 PM »
Thanks, I guess Sakwiki needs some updating. Also forgot to mention it is an advertising piece "Ship by Southern Railway System" incised in gold script.
This makes it my 64th SAK.

Rich

Cool find Rich!  :cheers:

I would enjoy seeing a picture of it. :D
Full Member Posts: 114
Re: Bijou confusion
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2019, 12:03:03 AM »
The Bijou (like the Classic) has been available since the 1950's. Victorinox applied for the associated patent, US patent 2718695, on November 1952 and it was granted on September 1955, so it seems likely that the Bijou has been around since the early 1950's. At that time Victorinox didn't use names, only model numbers, and the appropriate model number for what we now call Bijou was 623aCr+ (more commonly written with a space as 623 aCr+). This model number was the only official Victorinox designation for this model until the mid 1970's, when they introduced a new model numbering system along with model names. The above mentioned "1970's Victorinox US Catalogue-35 models" on SAKWiki is the earliest Catalog/Brochure that I am familiar with that shows the Bijou name and the new number.

Before the official Victorinox names, some local distributors used to give their own names. In particular, in the 1970's Hoffritz called the Bijou "Tinker" (they actually used the name "Tinker" for both the Bijou and the Classic), while some others called it "Commander" as indicated by the following early 1970's brochure page:



« Last Edit: April 23, 2019, 01:17:29 AM by MiniChamp »
Sr. Member Posts: 407 Wanted: Red Alox Tinker!!
Re: Bijou confusion
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2019, 03:09:19 PM »
Thanks, I have a copy, but forgot about it, of the 1970 catalog that Vicman refered to. Appreciate all the info.
Rich

------------------
There's intelligent life in the universe;
I just don't know where.
Full Member Posts: 182
Re: Bijou confusion
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2019, 08:28:40 PM »
Thanks, I guess Sakwiki needs some updating. Also forgot to mention it is an advertising piece "Ship by Southern Railway System" incised in gold script.
This makes it my 64th SAK.

Rich

Could you upload a picture? That would be cool and would help to date it.
Sr. Member Posts: 407 Wanted: Red Alox Tinker!!
Re: Bijou confusion
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2019, 11:08:31 PM »
Ulli -

Sorry no digicam. The knife is the same as on Sakwiki; just the info on Sakwiki is incorrect.
Rich

------------------
There's intelligent life in the universe;
I just don't know where.
Full Member Posts: 182
Re: Bijou confusion
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2019, 10:38:32 AM »
Ulli -

Sorry no digicam. The knife is the same as on Sakwiki; just the info on Sakwiki is incorrect.
Rich

Ok. I know a similar knife, made for this Railway Line, but with exposed rivets. Thats a Model Nr. 623 from the early 50-s.

That whole thing with using names instead of numbers, is totally confusion - in my opinion, and often incorrect. 58 mm knives with scissors, blade and nailcleaner, do exist since the early 50-s (but has nothing to do with this patent number, because that was used on 74 mm knives, not on the 58 mm line. Since the 50-s, this configuration was available, with or without keyring, with or without toothpick and tweezers. But that was still a knife nr 623, no bijou, no princess, no etc. Using names instead of numbers was just a marketing idea. I think in the us, thats really popular, using some "cool" names for products. Maybe that helps to get an emotional connection to a  product, so if you are using a knife called "hunter", maybe you will also feel a little bit like a hunter, someone shooting animals and be proud of the trophies.

Full Member Posts: 114
Re: Bijou confusion
« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2019, 07:16:58 PM »
but has nothing to do with this patent number, because that was used on 74 mm knives, not on the 58 mm line.
You are right. I was under the false impression that this patent also covers the 58mm line, but it is specific to using the central tooth mechanism that isn't used on 58mm SAKs. Thanks for correcting me!  :hatsoff:

P.S. Hobie has a video about such a "Ship By Southern Railway System" Bijou with visible rivets from the 1950's: https://youtu.be/a-ar0tYU9Vk?list=PLmtCpKAaOGqw4hFNWN0vx71lc5eR3qdRY
Global Moderator No Life Club Posts: 2,347
Re: Bijou confusion
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2019, 03:11:20 AM »
Thanks for 'spot' and all the great info guys

Wiki Bijou page updated - Also added a para to the main 58mm page re model numbering and names
Let me know any comments/feedback!

If you do spot glaring errors like this one - It would be great if you could put a note in the Work in the Wiki stickied thread - So that it can be seen and actioned by the editors.
Thanks
Full Member Posts: 114
Re: Bijou confusion
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2019, 06:21:07 AM »
Wiki Bijou page updated - Also added a para to the main 58mm page re model numbering and names
Let me know any comments/feedback!
Here are a few comments for you:

While the Bijou and Classic were indeed introduced in the 1950's, they were not the first 58mm models. They seem to have been predated by the single layer model 620 (essentially what is called "Princess" on SAKWiki) that can be found on page 32 of the 1942 catalog (and also on page 3 of the late 1940's catalog that I e-mailed you five months ago; why isn't it available on SAKWiki?).

As Ulli pointed out, US patent 2718695 doesn't seem to cover the 58mm line at all. It seems to be broadly believed that it does (and it looks like the SAKWiki main 58mm page has been saying so since February 2012), so I had to read the full text of the patent very carefully to convince myself of that, but I now believe that Ulli is simply right and that no 58mm SAK really falls under the protection of this patent. Maybe the SAKWiki main 58mm page should be corrected accordingly.

The key to figuring out the various model numbers of SAKs from the 1950's and 1960's is in this document (it's a compilation of various old catalogs and brochures that Victorinox created for our benefit in 2009). In particular, the images on the second page along with the fourth page give the various model designations of the 1950's 58mm SAKs. You may want to include more identifiers (e.g., while 623 aCr+ designates the Bijou with scale tools and red cellidor scales with a shield, 623 Cr+ designates a similar model without scale tools, 623 CP designates a Bijou with MOP scales and no scale tools, etc.).

The history section of the SAKWiki Classic page says: "The Classic was first introduced in 1935 without the toothpick or tweezers, which were added in 1942 to all models." As discussed above, I believe this statement to be wrong.
Full Member Posts: 114
Re: Bijou confusion
« Reply #12 on: April 26, 2019, 05:53:05 AM »
Wiki Bijou page updated - Also added a para to the main 58mm page re model numbering and names
Let me know any comments/feedback!
Here are a few comments for you:
I forgot to say: Thanks for all your hard work on SAKWiki!  :hatsoff:
Quote
623 CP designates a Bijou with MOP scales and no scale tools
This is actually wrong: 623 CP designates a Bijou with imitation MOP scales and no scale tools. The model designation for the real McCoy is 623 P.

 

Donations

Operational Funds

Help us keep the Unworkable working!
Donate with PayPal!
June Goal: $300.00
Due Date: Jun 30
Total Receipts: $147.00
PayPal Fees: $9.51
Net Balance: $137.49
Below Goal: $162.51
Site Currency: USD
46% 
June Donations

Community Links


Powered by EzPortal
SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.053 seconds with 18 queries.
© 2018 Defender Web & Tool