Vintage SAK Owners Club

[Huntsman]

Unrelated, but looking through some 84mm boxes, I did find the ‘63 SAC knife with the conical awl...

Interesting

And 50 years later this:
https://sakwiki.com/tiki-index.php?page=Wenger+RangerWood+161

[kamakiri]

The main question is why didn't they make a wide enough line of cheap Elinox knives in 1950s-1960s?

I’ve been meaning to get back to the root of your question...but I keep getting sidetracked looking through the collection.

Bottom line is that I don’t think you’re missing much, if any from your list. (Aside from the ESSR variants which I think LeaF covered better than I could)

Anyway...My theory is that there weren’t really reasons, needs or niches to ‘fill’ with Elinox model ‘construction’.  The main niches in my view are price related. If you look at the prices in the misc. US ‘60s catalogues, I find it hard to price theoretical additional Elinox models where they wouldn’t cannibalize sales of main line products. Especially, if you consider that they might be built with minor defect parts and not just cheaper process parts. Meaning that if Elinox part bins were primarily filled with mildly out of toloerance parts, they would likely be the high volume parts. Certailnly starting with parts found in a modern Spartan...plus scissors, wood saw, then what? Like a long nail file was a labor intensive part that didn’t belong in an Economy model...it commanded a whopping ~$4 of retail price premium. Metal files being case hardened, would be pretty useless as out of tolerance items...because they should have been tossed/recycled prior to hardening.

The theory continues and as manufacturing quality and costs improve, there is less need to dispose of such parts. My guess is that this shift happened broadly through the ‘70s and coincided with what we see in reduced Elinox model availability. Broader main line use of other manufacturing processes originally used for Elinox lines like tumble polishing seem pretty clear.

Once most parts were tumble polished, there was very little supply of parts for or diverted to the Elinox bins. Or so it seems to me, as it all coincides with my chronology. Machining and finishes are important parts of my study. Understanding how these two processes change through time allow me to put dates to almost any part of any knife as seen be member elsinox’s blind test for the UPP stamped can opener. This is also why I can date many knives looking at them closed. Mostly machining changes for the ‘50s as everything is hand polished all the way through and into the ‘70s where nothing is.

The theory also supports the reason for fewer 84mm Elinox knives. Fewer main line part production leads to proportionally fewer rejects for the Elinox bins.

Thanks, jnoxyd, for always asking such excellent questions and bringing up excellent topics. 

[jnoxyd]

Thanks Kamakiri for the answer! 
Indeed, I also do not see much sense in producing a cheap line using 50x-60x technologies.  Scissors in the Elinox series look terrible without usual manual polishing, non-oxidized liners have cracks (to be honest, even in the main series they are a problem), the absence of a file on the phillips hardly gives a strong price reduction, etc. Interestingly, they did not abandon the idea of inexpensive series and released the Economy line without obvious degradation (hot stamping instead of a metal emblem, no tools in the scales, a corkscrew without a groove, what else?).
And yes, Huntsman Economy exists . What other 3-4 lines Economy knives do you have?

[39hotrod]

 

[kamakiri]

Thanks Kamakiri for the answer! 
Indeed, I also do not see much sense in producing a cheap line using 50x-60x technologies.  Scissors in the Elinox series look terrible without usual manual polishing, non-oxidized liners have cracks (to be honest, even in the main series they are a problem), the absence of a file on the phillips hardly gives a strong price reduction, etc. Interestingly, they did not abandon the idea of inexpensive series and released the Economy line without obvious degradation (hot stamping instead of a metal emblem, no tools in the scales, a corkscrew without a groove, what else?).
And yes, Huntsman Economy exists . What other 3-4 lines Economy knives do you have?
(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)

Lol. Pulled one of those out too.

I think time for the tumble polish is reduced for most parts. Or I’m just seeing the out of tolerance QC culls.

I have these as c. ‘79

[kamakiri]

Was busy taking this apart last night. Gotta love 70+ year old grime!

.

[Barry Rowland]

I'd say!

[jnoxyd]

Was busy taking this apart last night. Gotta love 70+ year old grime!

.

What was a reason? Every parts look good

[kamakiri]

What was a reason? Every parts look good

Parts have some damage and wear. Most of it could be ‘fixed’ to some degree for functionality...and also a bit for cosmetics. At the very least these aspects can be improved without taking it apart.

I didn’t make a list when I decided to take this one apart, because I’m still not 100% certain about restoring it. Some of the pros for taking it apart:
Parts. I bought it for parts, which aren’t that great. Decent shape for some but all need a fair amount of work to look ‘good’.
Already missing original shackle. So less concern about parting out an incomplete knife.
Cleaning. Hardly a reason, but I don’t like the ‘spa’ treatment...and never do that with vintage knives.
Practice. Before I do some other crab claw knives that need disassembly without scale damage, I thought it better to do one with lower value.
And the big one. Smashed liner ends. These could be improved a bit assembled, but I wanted to try an ‘agressive’ or intensive restoration on them. Now I know I’ll never make the look new, but the intent is to make them look far less used and abused. See pics below.

The plate width of the outer liners essentially doubled. ~0.7mm -> 1.35mm and 1.40mm. Sure, I could have ‘fixed’ it with a file, but I got to the last pic with zero material removed.

I hope that explains some of my crazy!

.

[jnoxyd]

Yes it was worth doing. Hope you are going to use nickel silver rods for rivets

[kamakiri]

Yes it was worth doing. Hope you are going to use nickel silver rods for rivets

 
Of course! And for the shackle too.

I turn down the pins myself to 2.25mm from 3/32” stock ~2.37mm. I can re-use the long pin and 4th pin since they came out without material removal.

I’m going to try for the earlier style of shackle lugs that went into the early crab claws. Probably not the right style, but I haven’t made of that type before. Those usually go with the scales that have the nail relief for the corkscrew. This one is later than that and should probably have the ‘flatter’ style lug.

[jnoxyd]

Great plan!  Let us see what happens, please.

[jph_777]

Kamakiri,  looking forward to seeing how this project goes!

[Zanza]

Here are some of my latest finds (I've already shown the Richartz Solingen from Germany on the far right in another thread)




---------------------------------------------------------


- Victorinox 234 Bgl. (Spartan). 
I suppose it's from late 40's early 50's...








---------------------------------------------------------


- Wenger ? (Commander)
Measuring 82 mm, but I can't find not much more information to date it. Apparents rivets and can opener type claw "army style"






---------------------------------------------------------


- Unknown brand.
Measuring also 82mm, really nice and every blades are closing like a gator 







---------------------------------------------------------


I let the gurus of vintage sak telling more...

[39hotrod]

 

[Aloha]

 

[kamakiri]

Great plan!  Let us see what happens, please.

Kamakiri,  looking forward to seeing how this project goes!

Many of my posts got obliterated in the covid data dump. Uploaded pics didn’t seem to be affected. But I can’t tell for sure.

Anyway, the shackle is taking shape. I didn’t proceed with the ‘older’ style.

[jnoxyd]

Looks good

[kamakiri]

---------------------------------------------------------

- Victorinox 234 Bgl. (Spartan). 
I suppose it's from late 40's early 50's...

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

---------------------------------------------------------

Nice additions!

Looks more on the ‘40s side to me. Tang stamps, scale details, shackle style, etc.

[kamakiri]

Looks good

Thanks jnoxyd. 

Just hoping I don’t make any big mistakes as there’s a lot of time into it already.

[jnoxyd]

Thanks jnoxyd. 

Just hoping I don’t make any big mistakes as there’s a lot of time into it already.

The main problem for me is getting proper length after hammering the ends of rod

[kamakiri]

The main problem for me is getting proper length after hammering the ends of rod

No kidding. I use an offset from the pin center or ‘eye’ for control. If forming for widening also lengthens too much, then I gotta quickly figure out if there’s enough width or material toward the center. Always an issue with the second end.

I’ve tried 2.0mm wire, but I can’t seem to make it work...yet. Would save a lot of time.

[jnoxyd]

You are right, 2.0mm rods fit better for both bail versions (pre and post 1957). What is the problem with them? Here’s post 1957 version hand made bail together with  original one

[kamakiri]

You are right, 2.0mm rods fit better for both bail versions (pre and post 1957). What is the problem with them? Here’s post 1957 version hand made bail together with  original one (Image removed from quote.)

Nice work! 

Nothing wrong with the 2.0mm wire...just the guy wielding the hammers! (Apparently)

I was already intent on trying again with 2mm...as I’m sure that’s the way they were originally fabricated in forming dies. I just haven’t been able to move enough material the right way.

  Also makes me think we could or should have a vintage restoration thread.  The data dump and lost posts gives me pause.

[jnoxyd]

I was already intent on trying again with 2mm...as I’m sure that’s the way they were originally fabricated in forming dies. I just haven’t been able to move enough material the right way.

How do you make loop hole ? I use conical awl instead of drill for keeping enough metal for loop.

[Zanza]

Nice additions!

Looks more on the ‘40s side to me. Tang stamps, scale details, shackle style, etc.

Thank you Kamakiri for these precisions 

[kamakiri]

How do you make loop hole ? I use conical awl instead of drill for keeping enough metal for loop.

 

That never occurred to me!! 

Punches, modern awls, needle files, burrs and drill bits...are what I’ve been using.

Ironically, I’ve always assumed a cone or cut/frustum of a cone were used in the original forming dies.

I’ll have to try the conical awls. Now I gotta figure out which one to use! 

Thank you Kamakiri for these precisions 

  Glad to help, I only wish I could narrow it to specific year(s). In the sampling of 5 knives below from between roughly ‘47/‘48 and ‘52/‘53, yours appears to be closest to the second.

[Rizio Il Ghiro]

Wow - they look great!

[kamakiri]

Wow - they look great!

  Perhaps my favorite era to collect, But certainly fun to restore!

...

Decided to try the 2.0mm wire again for the shackle. Still tight on material but some changes in my forging techniques let me move forward with one of the smaller profiles.

Gonna turn one of my pins down to about 2.20-2.21 or so to help make it work. Re-forged the original shackle pin back into shape and 2.25mm dia., but I don’t want to turn it down in size.

[kamakiri]

Almost done. Pretty happy with it considering the original condition. Achieved the goal of looking ‘less abused’ as well as the replacement shackle.

Tools still need some work and I’ll probably include it in EDC rotation when it’s done.