Vintage SAK Owners Club

[TonySal]

I have the Champ, a bit much to pocket carry. Nice though 

[kamakiri]

Any Hoffritz lovers ? Nice but pricey (not mine to my regret  )

https://www.ebay.com/itm/c-1973-VTG-Victorinox-HOFFRITZ-Earliest-CHAMPION-C-Swiss-Army-Knife-NEW-IN-BOX-/254674039171?_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49292

I might know what they bought it for. 

And I know 100% it’s not ‘73 or really even c.’73.

I have a similar one produced after this one that is c.’77. Small clip points were used in more places and ways than most understand.

[TonySal]

I might know what they bought it for. 

And I know 100% it’s not ‘73 or really even c.’73.

I have a similar one produced after this one that is c.’77. Small clip points were used in more places and ways than most understand.

OMG yes just a bit expensive! Lolol

[kamakiri]

OMG yes just a bit expensive! Lolol

Might be worth that to somebody. 

But been listed for several months now. They might have bought it in 2019, if not earlier this year.

[Reinier]

Who can help me date this SAK? It's a horn scaled standard with these tang stamps:



According to Ulli's tang stamp guide the main blade stamp should be 1943-1951 but the cap lifter says 1891-1935. Obviously I may be totally wrong here.

[MiniChamp]

According to Ulli's tang stamp guide the main blade stamp should be 1943-1951 but the cap lifter says 1891-1935.

  Like many other things, Ulli's table works much better when you use the latest version.

[Reinier]

No need to be grumpy I think?

But thanks, I thought I was using the latest version but had not noticed it was an old one.

So 1943-1945 probably.

[MiniChamp]

No need to be grumpy I think?

I didn't realize that my response sounded grumpy. It was not my intention. Sorry.

With that said, the fact that people keep using older versions of Ulli's table seems to be a recurring problem. I think that it will be good if something will be done to make it easier for people to end up using the latest version. Maybe it will help if someone who can do such things will add a remark with a link to the latest version at the top of the Victorinox Tang Stamps thread.

[Max Stone]

Added link to Tang Stamp Wiki page

[Huntsman]

Hi Folks

Just caught up on the last four pages of this thread - Amazing discussions and knowledge as always 
Particularly interested in all the discussions around Bear, Hoffritz, SABI, Forschner and the US Vic imports etc
And of course all the old SAKs goes without saying!!

The Chief moderators and Grant prefer us never to alter any previously posted content - And certainly not without the permission of the OP.
With that said - MiniChamp's suggestion is a very sensible proposition.

So I could add the latest Ulli TS image to the very first post in his thread - with his permission - Shall I ask him? (I did that for my dating spreadsheet recently)
Max if you want I could also add it to your first post in the Tang Stamp project  - Let me know 

[Max Stone]

Yes, makes sense to include it. There are some dates on Ulli’s table that don’t align 100% with the Wiki page, but as you’ve stated before, dating SAKs is not an exact science.   

[Reinier]

I didn't realize that my response sounded grumpy. It was not my intention. Sorry.

OK I apologize, I probably misread your post.

[ulli]

Hi Folks

Just caught up on the last four pages of this thread - Amazing discussions and knowledge as always 
Particularly interested in all the discussions around Bear, Hoffritz, SABI, Forschner and the US Vic imports etc
And of course all the old SAKs goes without saying!!

The Chief moderators and Grant prefer us never to alter any previously posted content - And certainly not without the permission of the OP.
With that said - MiniChamp's suggestion is a very sensible proposition.

So I could add the latest Ulli TS image to the very first post in his thread - with his permission - Shall I ask him? (I did that for my dating spreadsheet recently)
Max if you want I could also add it to your first post in the Tang Stamp project  - Let me know 

I m happy if I could help. I stopped uploading newer version of my tang stamp sheet, because people always take the one on page 1 (approx. 7000 download) and not the newest one (approx. 1000 downloads) and some use the sheet without permisson on their pages.
Tang stamps are just one tool to date knives. I really like the tang stamp project on the other thread. I would stick on the mainly and regular used stamps. Because on knives before 1950, there are so many variants, around 5 versions of the VICTOR-INOX crossbow stamp. I dont think that would help people much when they just want date a knife in a timerange of some years.
MT is a really good place to bring people together, to share the knowledge, but I m not sure if its the perfect place for content based on facts and evidence. I m not sure if you know what I mean. Its a platform for discussions, for sharing. My intention with the tang stamp sheet was not to bring a perfect product that is 100% correct, because almost every day I see and learn something new. And thats the way I like it, to create something as a base for discussions. Thats very common in science. If you buy today a book in biology, in 5 years its worth nothing, because its already too old, not accurate, because now in 2020 people know much more than in 2015. But the problem with online content like here on MT is, that you cant replace old content with new content. So I see old tang stamp sheets everywhere, on online auctions, on homepages, most time with a claim that its 100% correct.

[jnoxyd]

Hi Ulli!  You're right, I'm tired of fixing guys using old versions of your date sheet and reminding them that it's not good to share this cool sheet without the name of the creator.  However, could you please post the most recent version with a proper title with your name.

[Max Stone]

Thanks Ulli for your comment/feedback. I hope that by adding your most recent table to these threads and to the updated Wiki tang page, we can steer people to this version. I do believe (and have stated before) that the Wiki tang page should follow the general format and content of the rest of the Wiki, which has a bias towards more recent models. Winding the clock back before 1950 becomes a lot more challenging for content and data, and almost deserves its own Vintage section that would require a lot of work. I think that threads like this one are of more value for those with an interest in vintage SAKs and willing to share/discuss information. 

[ulli]

Thanks Ulli for your comment/feedback. I hope that by adding your most recent table to these threads and to the updated Wiki tang page, we can steer people to this version. I do believe (and have stated before) that the Wiki tang page should follow the general format and content of the rest of the Wiki, which has a bias towards more recent models. Winding the clock back before 1950 becomes a lot more challenging for content and data, and almost deserves its own Vintage section that would require a lot of work. I think that threads like this one are of more value for those with an interest in vintage SAKs and willing to share/discuss information. 

I think I better give you a link to the sheet. There the size is not restricted and I can be sure its always the newest version.

https://elsinox.com/.cm4all/mediadb/.2020.11.%20zwo.jpg/picture-2600

[Max Stone]

Thank you Ulli - I have updated on the Wiki. Huntsman will need to update the threads on the forum. 

[kamakiri]

MT is a really good place to bring people together, to share the knowledge, but I m not sure if its the perfect place for content based on facts and evidence. I m not sure if you know what I mean. Its a platform for discussions, for sharing. My intention with the tang stamp sheet was not to bring a perfect product that is 100% correct, because almost every day I see and learn something new. And thats the way I like it, to create something as a base for discussions. Thats very common in science. If you buy today a book in biology, in 5 years its worth nothing, because its already too old, not accurate, because now in 2020 people know much more than in 2015. But the problem with online content like here on MT is, that you cant replace old content with new content. So I see old tang stamp sheets everywhere, on online auctions, on homepages, most time with a claim that its 100% correct.

Sadly, you are right. This is the problem with static unchanging sources of info.

It is one of my main challenges in improving the chronology data available here and ultimately in the Wiki.

Like the “1973” Hoffritz Champion for sale above which is actually c.’76. It would be nearly impossible to correct such errors because they feel that they have done ‘extensive research’ on the matter. I know, because I’ve tried.

The tang stamp updates, both yours and the wiki, will go a long way toward making it better.

My thanks to all who have participated in the wiki update. And especially to Max for taking the lead and listening to all the input. Excellent.

Not to say that it is or I am done with some of the refinements I need to get to, but it really is a huge milestone for the wiki regarding more accurate chronology.

[Max Stone]

  kamakiri, and the Wiki will continue to be developed to be a valuable resource 

And I saw what you did, good signature 

[MiniChamp]

Like the “1973” Hoffritz Champion for sale above which is actually c.’76.

Why do you think that it's c.’76? It seems to have a 2.7mm Victoria-era spring/corkscrew/main-blade-shank combination. I don't recall encountering before any claims that such SAKs were produced after 1974.

[kamakiri]

kamakiri, and the Wiki will continue to be developed to be a valuable resource 

And I saw what you did, good signature 

  Imitation is a sincere form of flattery!  I like the way you worded that. Better than I would do. 

Why do you think that it's c.’76?

I know it’s c.’76. There are perhaps a dozen things that confirm it. The seller’s pictures are very good, and it’s very easy to see what I need to see.

There are more obscure reasons like the similarities to a Hoffritz Super Knife I own...aside from one part that does not exist before ‘76 or ‘77. And I have lots of main line Champions produced on either side of this date range.

It seems to have a 2.7mm Victoria-era spring/corkscrew/main-blade-shank combination.

Are you 100% certain about that? I suggest looking at the pictures again. More cost effective than spending $400+ for it.

I don't recall encountering before any claims that such SAKs were produced after 1974.

Well, now you have. But I’m pretty sure we skirted the topic of your changeover theories in this time frame before. I’ll eventually get to the proof in the “dating in the ‘70s” series, assuming I don’t croak before then.

[MiniChamp]

I know it’s c.’76. There are perhaps a dozen things that confirm it. The seller’s pictures are very good, and it’s very easy to see what I need to see.

You are not really answering the question. Clearly, if you think that this SAK is c.’76, it's because of some "things" that you see in the pictures. The question is: What are those mysterious things?

Are you 100% certain about that?

I'm never 100% certain about anything, but I do believe that the attached image shows a 2.7mm Victoria-era spring. If I'm wrong, then surely you have an appropriate post-Victoria-era SAK with a 2.4mm spring that looks like this one. Can you show images of such a SAK?

Well, now you have.

Well, now you got me confused. Are you claiming that I'm wrong about this particular SAK having a 2.7mm Victoria-era spring or that SAKs with such springs were produced at least until 1976 (or both)?

I’ll eventually get to the proof in the “dating in the ‘70s” series, assuming I don’t croak before then.

I'll be extremely happy if you will ever start providing some sort of evidence to support your claims. Until then I tend to consider them as being quite questionable.

[kamakiri]

Let me not answer that with another question:

If you were Victorinox and you ran out (intentionally as part of the 2.7mm phase out) of one of those parts, but not other components in this layer, what would you do in order to use those other parts?

Regarding c.’76, there’s actually relevant info even in the cropped picture that you posted.

[kamakiri]

You are not really answering the question.

Yeah, that’s intentional. Incorrect suppositions are difficult to answer.

Clearly, if you think that this SAK is c.’76, it's because of some "things" that you see in the pictures. The question is: What are those mysterious things?

Going through all the pics, I counted 19. But you only really need the one to prove the point. And two are the most relevant parts to this discussion. Both are visible in the crop you posted.

I'm never 100% certain about anything, but I do believe that the attached image shows a 2.7mm Victoria-era spring. If I'm wrong, then surely you have an appropriate post-Victoria-era SAK with a 2.4mm spring that looks like this one. Can you show images of such a SAK?

You were pretty certain that the 84mm double cut file didn’t exist. This is like that. You’ve been looking at something you didn’t know existed. And are making all sorts of incorrect statements and assumptions about it.

And yes, I am able to show another knive that would prove the point just the same. But without explanation, it wouldn’t matter one bit.

Well, now you got me confused. Are you claiming that I'm wrong about this particular SAK having a 2.7mm Victoria-era spring or that SAKs with such springs were produced at least until 1976 (or both)?

Now I expect you to get really confused. My answers to both questions above are ‘No’.

I'll be extremely happy if you will ever start providing some sort of evidence to support your claims. Until then I tend to consider them as being quite questionable.

Lol. All there in the pics. Even in the crop you posted. Clear as daylight.


Found where we kinda discussed this before:

Hard to be certain, IMO. I do believe that transitions involving multiple parts tend to be relatively sharp. When they changed the thickness of the main blade shank from 2.7mm to 2.4mm, for example, this also involved changing the spring and the corresponding backside tool (corkscrew or Phillips SD). I think that you will never find a pre-3 variant of the backside Phillips SD on a SAK with a 2.4mm main blade shank, because they never made such variants that would fit. When a transition involves a single fully interchangeable part, however, the older parts tend to keep getting used in overlap with the new ones.

There are actually two non-interchangeable types of variant 3 of the backside Phillips SD. The first appeared towards the end of the Victoria era and has a 2.7mm shank. I expect that it was used in some overlap with both variant 2b and variant 1b (because they were all interchangeable). The second has a 2.4mm shank and was introduced along with the corresponding main blades (this should be the only square backside Phillips SD that you will find along with these newer blades).
I happen to have a similar Grand-Prix. The only difference is that mine has the older big-gap scissors. I believe it to be from "around 1973." For me this essentially means 1972-1974. I tend to be skeptical about anyone's ability to date SAKs with an error margin of less than a year (except, maybe, a small number of very special cases). Nevertheless, I'm curious how you would date the two Victoria craftsmen in the attached image (sorry about the quality). I believe them to be from "around 1973" as well. Both have the same standard-gap scissors with a black spring. The only differences are as follows: The upper one has the can-key Phillips (variant 3) and a scraper on the cap-lifter. The lower one has a file on the Phillips (variant 1b) and no scraper on the cap-lifter.

This is like the 84mm double cut file on the Philiips.

Basically, take everything you think you know, and just throw that out. Look at the auction pictures again. Pretty much prove everything you say in the above two posts to be flat out wrong. Or buy the knife and see for yourself.

[Sterg]

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?

[Sterg]

Another shot...

[Sterg]

Here’s a shot of the stamp on the other side. This looks legit.

[kamakiri]

What’s everyone’s thoughts?

I do think you’re right that it’s engraved. I have been under the assumption that it is ‘normal’. But I do not have many knives as such and in general prefer tangs stamped with dies like the INOXYD one.

AFAIK, It’s all legit.

[Sterg]

I do think you’re right that it’s engraved. I have been under the assumption that it is ‘normal’. But I do not have many knives as such and in general prefer tangs stamped with dies like the INOXYD one.

AFAIK, It’s all legit.

Thanks kamakiri. The inoxyd stamp is on the same knife so I think the blade is legit also. I also prefer stamped tangs. It does look like it was rebuilt professionally so it leads me to believe Victorinox did the work.

[jnoxyd]

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