Penny Knife for Patches?

[Bo T]

That would be very true of the factory system developed in Britain during the Industrial Revolution (starting circa 1750, and circa 1800/1810 in the US). Before then, and in France, Spain and Italy which were primarily agricultural societies at the time, the small shop system was the norm, and it wasn't until circa 1800 that changes in production started to kick in.

Even in England, the guide system was in effect until the 20th Century. Individual forgers had their own shop where they forged the blades then sent them off to the grinders. This would have been true for the small blades of the pocket knives.

 

[Smokey Plainsman]

Thanks all, great info.

So, it appears they WOULD be PC for the most part to put in the bag as a patch knife... at least theoretically.

Anyone out there make a quality repro penny knife of correct styling for the time period?

 

[Bo T]

I saw one on Clay Smith's web site.

 

[Black Hand]

Thanks all, great info.

So, it appears they WOULD be PC for the most part to put in the bag as a patch knife... at least theoretically.

Anyone out there make a quality repro penny knife of correct styling for the time period?

I got mine from Mark at Kootenai River Traders - [email protected]

 

[Stophel]

Until the early 19th century, manufacturing steel required more time and resources than making iron. Consequently, it was more expensive. If you were part of the common folk and had a knife, chances are it was made of iron, not steel.

I think you're trying to primitivize the era way too much. Steel was relatively expensive, of course, but even the Indians were traded knives of steel, and axes with steel bits. Folding knives were common as dirt, and the spring alone requires steel. An iron folding knife blade would not last very long at all. It would wear out quite quickly simply from bearing on the spring.

Iron is SOFT. Seriously soft. Little different from brass. A thin 1/16" or 3/32" knife blade made of iron would fold up like a wet noodle, and there were plenty of thin blades like that. Iron simply would not have held up.

You can even sometimes see the weld line where a steel blade was joined to the iron tang of an 18th century knife. Steel blade knives were not unusual at all at that time.

Steel blade knives, both straight and folding, were manufactured in mass throughout the 18th century, and shipped to America in great quantities.

 

[Stophel]

I would suggest for anyone wanting to know what types of knives (or axes, or tools, or clothing, or anything else) were used in a certain period to research it themselves. Look and see what is found in dateable archaeological sites. Study period images and documents. See what is there, and what ain't. For most things, you really don't need conjecture (or wishful thinking), it's all right there to see. Yeah, you gotta search for it. It's not gonna fall into your lap. It takes time and effort (and sometimes, great expenditures of money). But given this thing we have today called "the internet", there is SO much more information available today than even a few years ago...if you're willing to hunt for it.

Sure, some things may remain mysteries, but for the most part, things are pretty well evidenced.

 

[LRB]

I would agree with Stophel. Knife steel would have been blister steel maybe, or more often and likely, shear steel, or double shear steel for the better ones.

 

[Artificer]

I would agree with Stophel. Knife steel would have been blister steel maybe, or more often and likely, shear steel, or double shear steel for the better ones.

LRB is correct. Blister Steel was the common way to make steel until this procedure was developed.

"In about 1739 an English watchmaker, Benjamin Huntsman, discovered that under the right conditions blister steel could be melted in a crucible and stirred while liquid. This caused very uniform distribution of the carbon. Steel made this way was called “cast steel.” By the late 18th century "cast steel" was being used for cutlery and chisels. Contrary to popular belief a chisel marked "Cast Steel" was not cast! It was forged from a bar of steel that had been made through the crucible process. (In the early 19th century some rifle barrels were made of cast steel but most were wrought iron until after the Bessemer process made uniform, high-quality steel much cheaper in the mid-19th century.)
"

http://www.flintriflesmith.com/WritingandResearch/WebArticles/ironandsteel.htm

Rather inexpensive folding knives, like the English Barlow Knives, began using steel from this process in the 1740's.

Gus

 

[Straekat]

I think you're trying to primitivize the era way too much. Steel was relatively expensive, of course, but even the Indians were traded knives of steel, and axes with steel bits. Folding knives were common as dirt, and the spring alone requires steel. An iron folding knife blade would not last very long at all. It would wear out quite quickly simply from bearing on the spring.

I think you're trying to primitivize the era way too much. Steel was relatively expensive, of course, but even the Indians were traded knives of steel, and axes with steel bits. Folding knives were common as dirt, and the spring alone requires steel. An iron folding knife blade would not last very long at all. It would wear out quite quickly simply from bearing on the spring.

Iron is SOFT. Seriously soft. Little different from brass. A thin 1/16" or 3/32" knife blade made of iron would fold up like a wet noodle, and there were plenty of thin blades like that. Iron simply would not have held up.

You can even sometimes see the weld line where a steel blade was joined to the iron tang of an 18th century knife. Steel blade knives were not unusual at all at that time.

Steel blade knives, both straight and folding, were manufactured in mass throughout the 18th century, and shipped to America in great quantities.

I wouldn't call an axe that's primarily iron, with a small wedge of steel welded onto the body of the axe, a STEEL AXE. If as you are suggesting steel was that commonplace, then why make a composite piece, when casting a one-piece steel head is quicker and easier than forging an iron body, and requires less labor, etc, then a blacksmith forging a bog-iron body and then welding an inserted steel wedge in place? Contrary to your implication otherwise, steel production was not capable of mass-production until after the start of the Industrial Revolution.

If steel production was capable of being produced in large quantities, there would have been a demand on the part of the military for greater use in armaments during the Seven Years War, and later during the American Revolution. We know that didn't happen, and British arms production capabilities were inadequate and foreign made weapons using iron barrels (and bayonets) were needed to pick up the slack.

What I have seen is when items made entirely of steel began appearing very late in the 18th century (1790's/1800), manufacturers tended to stamp that it was "STEEL" to indicate to the buyer not a composite piece. That practice lasted through to at least the second quarter of the 19th century.

When technologies are first introduced and when they become commonplace may not happen at the same time. Typically, new technologies are expensive to buy at first, and then prices drop after R&D, start-up costs have been recouped, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucible_steel

Yes, that's a wiki article, however it discusses when steel production in the UK was able to go from small scale production to large scale, and that does not pre-date the middle of the 18th century. Being able to produce steel "and manufacture(d) in mass throughout the 18th century, and shipped to America in great quantities" was possible with the on-set on the Industrial Revolution.

American/European traders selling goods to Amerindians did not sell high-quality items that were meant to last a long time. It can be argued the opposite so that items wore out, broke, and not meant to last so the trader (not to mention manufactures and other middlemen) would continue to make money from return business.

 

[Straekat]

Rather inexpensive folding knives, like the English Barlow Knives, began using steel from this process in the 1740's.
Gus

I'll repeat something I posted earlier. The date something is discovered/first made/announced, is not necessarily when it became commonplace and everyone could afford the items.

An example is the introduction of computer technology using electronics in the 1940's, and the long process of development until the home computers started appearing on the market circa 1980 that cost several thousand and were little more than glorified calculators, to the cost of a new laptop today.

Because it was "known" at the time, it doesn't qualify as commonplace or affordable.

 

[Artificer]

"
I have read that a single bevel was used extensively by Native Americans as it worked more effectively at skinning game than the double bevel. As such it would have been used more often than we might realize.

I cannot speak to the historic use of single edged blades for a patch knife, but I can speak as having finish ground and used one.

Back in the mid/late 70's, I bought a "patch knife blade blank" from Indian Ridge Traders that was already hardened and annealed, but was still rectangular shape, 4 inches long and I think only 1/16" thick, though it may have been 3/32" thick. All I know is that when I got it, the blade was so thin that I could not see how to grind it on both sides. Eventually I decided to grind it with a snag grinder and on one side only. Of course with a blade so thin, it went into an old coffee can filled with water after almost every pass on the grinding wheel. It turned out so sharp, it was downright scary. I decided to make a rounded "sheeps foot" on the front, instead of a point. I added a curly maple handle. Didn't get to use it much as a good friend was so taken with it, I gave it to him. Never got around to making another one, though.

Gus

 

[Stophel]

I wouldn't call an axe that's primarily iron, with a small wedge of steel welded onto the body of the axe, a STEEL AXE. If as you are suggesting steel was that commonplace, then why make a composite piece, when casting a one-piece steel head is quicker and easier than forging an iron body, and requires less labor, etc, then a blacksmith forging a bog-iron body and then welding an inserted steel wedge in place? Contrary to your implication otherwise, steel production was not capable of mass-production until after the start of the Industrial Revolution.

Never once did I claim that axes were steel, rather I said they had steel insert bits (which, by the way, was being done LONG after the industrial revolution made all-steel axes possible...). Steel is not necessary for the body of the axe head, only for the bit. Why waste good money on steel when you don't need to?

Steel was available for blades, springs, and tools long before the Industrial Revolution (whenever you want to call that). It wasn't super cheap, to be sure, and that's why it was reserved for parts where it was absolutely necessary. But it was there, and available for common use.

 

[Artificer]

I'll repeat something I posted earlier. The date something is discovered/first made/announced, is not necessarily when it became commonplace and everyone could afford the items.

An example is the introduction of computer technology using electronics in the 1940's, and the long process of development until the home computers started appearing on the market circa 1980 that cost several thousand and were little more than glorified calculators, to the cost of a new laptop today.

Because it was "known" at the time, it doesn't qualify as commonplace or affordable.

Actually, the date of the mid 1740's was the starting date of widespread use of cast steel for knife blades and other edged items in England, because it was cheaper than blister steel and made it possible to make less expensive folding and other knives..

Something else, though the sockets of bayonets were at first made of Iron, the blades were made of steel and welded to the Iron Sockets. A soft Iron blade on a bayonet was useless.

Further there were large scale Knife and Sword Making centers in Italy (Milan and Brescia), Spain (Toledo), France (Paris, Lyons), Germanic States (Cologne, Passau and Solingen) and less commonly known Flanders—Antwerp, Bruges, Ghent, and Tournai; all of them well established long before the period we are discussing.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Oh, and the "best steels" that English and American gunsmiths used in the 18th century for Main Springs, Feather (frizzen) Springs and at least the face of the Steels (frizzens) were made of what was commonly called Norwegian or Swedish Steel. The purity of their Iron Ore had a lot to do with how good their Steel was.

Gus

 

[Straekat]

Actually, the date of the mid 1740's was the starting date of widespread use of cast steel for knife blades and other edged items in England, because it was cheaper than blister steel and made it possible to make less expensive folding and other knives..
..................
Further there were large scale Knife and Sword Making centers in Italy (Milan and Brescia), Spain (Toledo), France (Paris, Lyons), Germanic States (Cologne, Passau and Solingen) and less commonly known Flanders—Antwerp, Bruges, Ghent, and Tournai; all of them well established long before the period we are discussing.

Gus

Gus,

The British actively attempted to restrict other nations/states, or non-British entities from developing trade networks in North America, and that would have limited how much items made on the European continent would have been available within the area of British controlled colonies. France was actively trading in North America, and Spanish territories were not easily accessible from the eastern seaboard.

Britain and France as you know, fought several wars over control of North America, over access to the interior of the continent and control over trading with the inhabitants was a major factor in those conflicts.

While Britain and France were competing with each other, they permitted some trade items such as Italian made beads, and a few other items to reach their colonial zones of control provided trade went through them, and they got to "wet the beak" in the process.

The focus of interest is not when something was made or know, but if it was known and used in the context of NA, and whether it was really "commonplace", limited, or one of a kind.

 

[wshipman]

A couple of thoughts, no evidence, on the subject:

1. A rifleman's blade(s) in the 18th Century would not have been bought at the local sportsman's store! He'd had two optons:

1. He might have gotten hold of a trade knife or two.

2. He would have gone to the local blacksmith, who would have fashioned a hunting knife (generally in the style we'd call a butcher knife nowadays), 'hawk, and most likely a patch knife, to HIS specifications.

In either case, the blades would have been of high carbon steel, capable, for the most part, of taking and holding a keen (razor) edge, when needed. And, he would have know how to put that edge on the blades. His life depended on that skill.

 

[Straekat]

Oh, and the "best steels" that English and American gunsmiths used in the 18th century for Main Springs, Feather (frizzen) Springs and at least the face of the Steels (frizzens) were made of what was commonly called Norwegian or Swedish Steel. The purity of their Iron Ore had a lot to do with how good their Steel was.

Gus

Two comments:

First, it's highly likely other industries than the arms trade may have been based on several specialized trades within the industry. We know apprentices are often taught to make selected items such as springs, while someone else worked on stocks, etc. Also, items can be subcontracted out to other businesses and bought instead making them yourself. The manufacturing and assembly process can be divided up into a factory type system to speed up production.

Second. Survival of items from the past influences what we think we know of that time. What we tend to overlook is that items that were used hard, worn out or broken were often reused/recycled, or at times used for scrap. For example, there are several examples of armor worn by Henry VIII from the time he was a teenager to his final years. The teenager version was outgrown but saved, and that happened to other pieces he owned and have survived. Contemporary items damaged on the battlefield might have been repaired, reworked, scrapped for the metal, etc. What was the most common of the period? This is meant as a cautionary statement, that "survival" of artefacts and what we think is "commonplace" or typical of the time needs to be carefully considered before we use the word "common."

 

[Artificer]

It seems you may not understand that England imported many items from other countries and then "re-sold" them to the American Colonies or used them in items they made for the American Colonies. Also, there was extensive smuggling trade with the Dutch and to a lesser extent, the Germanic States during the 18th century; though some items from both areas also came in on British or British American Ships at higher tax rates.

While I agree that did not make some items "commonplace" or even known at all in the British American Colonies, world wide trade was far better developed during the 18th century than some realize.

Of course with the three Kings George in the 18th century being originally Hanoverian, extensive trade was conducted with the Germanic States that had not been done prior to their Reigns.

One of the largest examples of foreign trade I can think of off the top of my head was the winter of 1739/40 was so cold that it froze most of the rivers and streams in England and that stopped the water wheels - bringing gun barrel and lock production to a virtual stand still. During this time and for the following two years, British Ordnance imported 15,000 "Dutch" Muskets (mainly from the Netherlands/Belgium) and made in the style of the Brown Bess. This plus an additional 35,000 gun barrels from the same sources to supply arms for the War of Jenkin's Ear that morphed into the War of the Austrian Succession.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Two comments:

First, it's highly likely other industries than the arms trade may have been based on several specialized trades within the industry. We know apprentices are often taught to make selected items such as springs, while someone else worked on stocks, etc. Also, items can be subcontracted out to other businesses and bought instead making them yourself. The manufacturing and assembly process can be divided up into a factory type system to speed up production.

Second. Survival of items from the past influences what we think we know of that time. What we tend to overlook is that items that were used hard, worn out or broken were often reused/recycled, or at times used for scrap. For example, there are several examples of armor worn by Henry VIII from the time he was a teenager to his final years. The teenager version was outgrown but saved, and that happened to other pieces he owned and have survived. Contemporary items damaged on the battlefield might have been repaired, reworked, scrapped for the metal, etc. What was the most common of the period? This is meant as a cautionary statement, that "survival" of artefacts and what we think is "commonplace" or typical of the time needs to be carefully considered before we use the word "common."

I'm sorry and perhaps I am mistaken, but I must point out you have taken a specific long imported and well known item that is well documented as having been used "commonplace" by gunsmiths in England and the Colonies in the 18th century and then gone off into a generalized dissertation.

Gus

 

[Straekat]

I'm sorry and perhaps I am mistaken, but I must point out you have taken a specific long imported and well known item that is well documented as having been used "commonplace" by gunsmiths in England and the Colonies in the 18th century and then gone off into a generalized dissertation.

Gus

Gus, my initial comments were regarding the use of iron and then followed that with the use of steel.

My contention is the use of "common" or "commonplace" and at times other words, in describing practices or items that are used subjectively. In spoken or conversational English words are used loosely. In academic and historical contexts, words can carry specific meanings and connotations.

In conversation we might say Mercedes are "commonplace" but in realistic terms, the actual numbers of people who own one and drive one daily is not typical of what the common American working person owns or drives to work daily.

Re your point about firearms:

Although firearms and related materials were imported into the British colonies, the amounts were not freely imported and at times subject to restrictions imposed by Britain. Black powder was at various times before the Revolution, in short supply because of those restrictions, and before lead deposits were discovered a similar state prevailed. The British Crown and parliament had more than one policy restriction on what could be imported legally into the colonies, and a considerable smuggling industry developed to supply those restrictions.

These two linked articles might be of interest to you. The first suggests the Revolution may have been triggered by arms imports and powder being restricted in import quantities into the colonies and the second, to the original article the idea came from. The second article has a link to download it in pdf form.

How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution | | Tenth Amendment Center

How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution by David B. Kopel :: SSRN