Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Imperial folding knife versus a Camillus.  (Read 16691 times)

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Imperial folding knife versus a Camillus.
« on: March 12, 2012, 01:49:13 PM »


I was wondering if anyone could tell me what the distinguishable characteristic was that determine that the pocket knife found on Niku was a Imperial knife? The Camillus as almost identical and the artifact found does resemble the Camillus.

Thanks.

Antique Camillus knife
"EZ Open Jack w/ Bail"
Proudly made in the U.S.A. 1902-1945
Order #CMEZOJB

Antique Camillus knife "EZ Open Jack w/ Bail". Antique jigged brown bone handle scales. High carbon steel spear point blade and pen blade. Both blades have good open, close, and half snap. Nickel silver bolsters, liners, handle pins, and bail. A great antique Camillus pocket knife that was proudly made in Camillus, New York U.S.A. between 1902 and 1945.

Features:
Blade Material: High Carbon Steel
Handle Material: Jigged Bone
Blade Length: 2-1/2"
Closed Length: 3-1/2"
Weight: 2.6 oz
Logged

Ted G Campbell

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 329
Re: Imperial folding knife versus a Camillus.
« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2012, 07:18:10 PM »

Marty,
You have to get this message over to Ric ASAP.
Ted Campbell
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2882
Re: Imperial folding knife versus a Camillus.
« Reply #2 on: March 12, 2012, 09:02:43 PM »

You have to get this message over to Ric ASAP.

Ric and Pat are both pretty preoccupied just now.

Ric catches up on the Forum at those times that are good for him.

Meanwhile, I'll add a link to the Forum post to the wiki article.

If anyone wants to acquire a reference knife and send it to TIGHAR Central, I imagine Ric and Pat would be very grateful.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
« Last Edit: March 12, 2012, 09:04:43 PM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Imperial folding knife versus a Camillus.
« Reply #3 on: March 18, 2012, 02:00:27 PM »

according to this amelia had give her own knife to John Olivier Lagorce



http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=2433&REC=20

and purchased a new 1 in batavia

dont know if it is true or not  :)
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Daniel Paul Cotts

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 89
Re: Imperial folding knife versus a Camillus.
« Reply #4 on: March 18, 2012, 11:39:24 PM »

Richie, I'm getting that she gave Mr. LaGorce a knife from a previous flight - maybe her solo across the Atlantic. The Batavia knife which she identifies as a sheath knife seems to be more of a souvenir. So the jackknife from the Luke Field inventory Inventory item#24 is still in play as an object that could have made it to Niku.

Update:
Subsequent posts to this thread eliminate the knife inventoried at Luke Field as a candidate for the knife parts found on Niku.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2012, 01:29:19 PM by Daniel Paul Cotts »
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 626
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: Imperial folding knife versus a Camillus.
« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2012, 08:34:30 AM »

Marty - I thought we had ID'd the jackknife in the Luke Inventory as being something other than an Imperial knife, but I see in the inventory that it is simply listed as "Bone Handle, double blade Jack Knife, large Blade No. 22309"  Was there something about the Model /  Serial number that led us to the manufacturer other than Imperial?

The artifact matches the Imperial nicely, but this new Camillus option certainly looks like it needs to be examined closely to rule it in or or as a possibility.  I think pocket knives generally were in ubiquitous use in those days, and many companies obviously made similar if not near identical products.  There may be others that the Niku knife comes close to.

As Marty says, the best way to test this is to obtain a vintage Camillus example, so if anyone happens to come across one....

Andrew
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2882
Re: Imperial folding knife versus a Camillus.
« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2012, 08:58:14 AM »

Marty - I thought we had ID'd the jackknife in the Luke Inventory as being something other than an Imperial knife, but I see in the inventory that it is simply listed as "Bone Handle, double blade Jack Knife, large Blade No. 22309"  Was there something about the Model /  Serial number that led us to the manufacturer other than Imperial?

Rick Jones suggested that "22309" matches the naming conventions of the Cattaraugus.  See the wiki article for details and links.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Tim Collins

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
Re: Imperial folding knife versus a Camillus.
« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2012, 09:07:24 AM »

What is known about stencil brands as regard to pocket knifes of the period? Certainly not all who sold knives actually manufactured them but stenciled their brand on knives of other manufacturers.
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Imperial folding knife versus a Camillus.
« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2012, 09:12:05 AM »

Here are images of a Cattaraugus 22309 that was for sale on eBay (same one?). You might want to snag the picture before it disappears. I am guessing that they do not come around very often.

I had the impression that the artifact was identified as an "easy open" by the little half moon cut out that made opening the blade easier. I need to review. Thanks.

Update - You can see the artifact here Niku VI Results. Because it was indeed an easy open type, I think that we can conclude it was not the Cattaraugus 22309. The hunt continues...
« Last Edit: March 19, 2012, 09:17:21 AM by Heath Smith »
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Imperial folding knife versus a Camillus.
« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2012, 09:38:56 AM »


Here is a collector page where they are posting all different brands that were of the "ez-open" type. If someone were to spend some time on this, overlaying the artifact on to the images, you might be able to isolate a few candidates.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2882
Re: Imperial folding knife versus a Camillus.
« Reply #10 on: March 19, 2012, 10:30:23 AM »

Here are images of a Cattaraugus 22309 that was for sale on eBay (same one?). You might want to snag the picture before it disappears. I am guessing that they do not come around very often.

I don't want to borrow pictures without giving credit.

Quote
I had the impression that the artifact was identified as an "easy open" by the little half moon cut out that made opening the blade easier. I need to review. Thanks.

Update - You can see the artifact here Niku VI Results. Because it was indeed an easy open type, I think that we can conclude it was not the Cattaraugus 22309. The hunt continues...

We are talking about two different knives.

The one that is identified as a Cattaraugus 22309 is the one listed in the Luke Field Inventory: "#24: Bone Handle, double blade Jack Knife, large Blade No. 22309."

It is reasonable to think that this is a Cattaraugus knife because the number matches the Cattaraugus Knife Numbering System.

2 blades
2 bolsters
Model 30
Bone handle

No one has said that the knife parts found at the Seven site are from a Cattaraugus 22309.  Quite the contrary.  The link just given says: "Bone handled, double-bladed 'Easy Open Jack Knife' manufactured by The Imperial Cutlery Company. This knife was widely available commercially from 1930 onward and, during WWII, was also produced in large numbers under U.S. government contract as 'bone handle Navy general utility pocket knives' and 'Navy easy-openers.'"
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
« Last Edit: March 19, 2012, 10:33:47 AM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Imperial folding knife versus a Camillus.
« Reply #11 on: March 19, 2012, 10:32:18 AM »


Martin,

I just wanted to be sure that no one was thinking that the knife found was the one from the Luke Field inventory.

I should have worded that more carefully.

Thanks.
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Imperial folding knife versus a Camillus.
« Reply #12 on: March 19, 2012, 01:44:58 PM »

Of course this;

Quote
No one has said that the knife parts found at the Seven site are from a Cattaraugus 22309.  Quite the contrary.  The link just given says: "Bone handled, double-bladed 'Easy Open Jack Knife' manufactured by The Imperial Cutlery Company. This knife was widely available commercially from 1930 onward and, during WWII, was also produced in large numbers under U.S. government contract as 'bone handle Navy general utility pocket knives' and 'Navy easy-openers.'"

also makes it a candidate for a relic of the LORAN coasties.
Logged

Thunderbird69

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Imperial folding knife versus a Camillus.
« Reply #13 on: October 28, 2014, 12:17:48 AM »

http://www.blog.antiquesnavigator.com/ebay/images/2010/270664297853.jpg

Could be two different knives, notice brass bolsters, not same as easy open! This knife is a Kutmaster Imperial jack knife. Looks more like the broken knife in your picture, I could be wrong of coarse, but looks exactly the same to me!
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

Copyright 2018 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP