Penny Knife for Patches?

[Rifleman1776]

Modern blacksmiths typically used low-grade steel, not real wrought iron.

Yes. I have heard several current day blacksmiths say real wrought iron is simply no longer available. The exception, one blacksmith I met uses old decorative fences and other items for his wrought.

 

[44-henry]

Take a few minutes and google this string, with all of the words:

French "fur trade" "iron knives" archaeology

You'll get a long list of articles that contain references to IRON, not steel knives traded by the French to Indians from the 1600s through the 1740's. The knives included both fixed and folding blade knives. There are also references to iron axes (no mention of steel bit/edges).

This article is one you can check if you don't want to google the text string and aren't interested in reading archaeological reporting of iron knives being recovered from historic French/Indian sites of the fur trade era.

http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/post/htmls/te_trade.html

Once you have READ some of those reports, let me know if you are still skeptical of what professional archaeologists have recovered and reported on. Please note, it's not one report, but several from wide spread occurrences all across the Trans-Mississippi, Great Lakes and eastern Canada.

Facts, not opinions.

If you are trying to support your argument with "Facts, not opinions" you probably shouldn't post links like you did above. Frankly the information presented on that site would make a good book for coffee table reading, but it is pretty much worthless for anything beyond that. Problem with most of the material you seem to take as the gospel truth is that the people who put it together were not all that expert in metallurgical concepts and seem to like to refer to anything that rusts as iron, or my personal favorite, "metal". You really need to spend some time looking at articles that go into metallurgical analysis of the artifacts that have been recovered. There is a very nice thesis from Lehigh University in the area of Materials Science and Engineering entitled "A Metallographic Study of 18th Century Woodworking Tools from the Williamsburg Collection". You can find this at: https://preserve.lehigh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1266&context=etd

Here you have a proper study conducted that actually does explore these tools. If you choose to READ this study you will find that none of these tools use low carbon iron for anything other than support, the cutting edges are all high carbon materials that are composed of either blister, shear, or cast steel.

I have made many of the so called "Penny Knives" over the years and have spent a good bit of time researching these things to better understand there place in history. While the term "Penny Knife" is an old one, it never was probably used to specifically describe a knife like we envision today. George Neumann's book on the American Revolution presented some artifacts that included a Penny Knife, but many of Neumann's artifacts have fallen into question and the validity of his work has been seriously compromised. Gene Chapman wrote the literal book on making Penny Knives, but even he call's into question the validity of Neumann's claims. Bernard Levine, noted knife expert and author claims the term "Penny Knife" is a modern one. I don't agree with his analysis as I have found references to Penny Knives in 18th century literature, but like I said earlier it was used to describe a cheap knife be that fixed or folding variety.

As was mentioned already the style of knife that most of us identify as a Penny Knife bears a lot of similarity to the ones produced in Trattenbach Austria, a knifemaking center that has roots well into the medieval period. These are still being produced in Trattenbach today by the only surviving factory, but they claim that this pattern was being produced as early at the 17th century. I have found examples of this type, with slightly different characteristics that were produced in Poland and other areas as well. Since the basic style of this knife can be traced back to the Roman era it is not surprising to me that they might have been produced in many places around the world and exported to other areas, perhaps America as well. If not that it is not too hard to believe that some of the immigrants that came here no doubt carried them. As thin as the blades one these things are they would never have held up if made out of a simple piece of low grade iron, just would not happen. On a few of the ones that I have made I have used blister steel, I think this is a reasonable choice for a simple knife like these. Further refining the blister to grades of shear steel would probably have been reserved for better quality knives and tools.

 

[Stumpkiller]

BH....ABSOLUTELY!

I collect and use cast iron cooking utensils, and they get used indoors in the kitchen, and outdoors over a campfire. I've yet to see a cast iron skillet made for use on a coal stove, and used on campfires turn into a steel one.....

You have to cook at 2,800°F (like THE ADMIRAL does) to melt cast iron. But you only need 2,200°F to forge steel. Interestingly - cast iron will have 1.8 to 4.0% Carbon . . . while High Carbon steel usually has around 2.0% Carbon. Low Carbon steel may have only 0.25%.

It's all in the cooking and pounding. ;-)

 

[Black Hand]

You have to cook at 2,800°F (like THE ADMIRAL does) to melt cast iron. But you only need 2,200°F to forge steel. Interestingly - cast iron will have 1.8 to 4.0% Carbon . . . while High Carbon steel usually has around 2.0% Carbon. Low Carbon steel may have only 0.25%.

It's all in the cooking and pounding. ;-)

Carbon distribution is likely far more significant - inserted in a regular manner would tend to "stiffen" the matrix, while present in an irregular distribution would give hard & soft spots and lesser edge retention.

http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-iron-and-steel
http://wiki.cs.utah.edu/_media/adi.pdf

 

[Straekat]

If you are trying to support your argument with "Facts, not opinions" you probably shouldn't post links like you did above. Frankly the information presented on that site would make a good book for coffee table reading, but it is pretty much worthless for anything beyond that. Problem with most of the material you seem to take as the gospel truth is that the people who put it together were not all that expert in metallurgical concepts and seem to like to refer to anything that rusts as iron, or my personal favorite, "metal". You really need to spend some time looking at articles that go into metallurgical analysis of the artifacts that have been recovered. There is a very nice thesis from Lehigh University in the area of Materials Science and Engineering entitled "A Metallographic Study of 18th Century Woodworking Tools from the Williamsburg Collection". You can find this at: https://preserve.lehigh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1266&context=etd

Here you have a proper study conducted that actually does explore these tools. If you choose to READ this study you will find that none of these tools use low carbon iron for anything other than support, the cutting edges are all high carbon materials that are composed of either blister, shear, or cast steel.

I have made many of the so called "Penny Knives" over the years and have spent a good bit of time researching these things to better understand there place in history. While the term "Penny Knife" is an old one, it never was probably used to specifically describe a knife like we envision today. George Neumann's book on the American Revolution presented some artifacts that included a Penny Knife, but many of Neumann's artifacts have fallen into question and the validity of his work has been seriously compromised. Gene Chapman wrote the literal book on making Penny Knives, but even he call's into question the validity of Neumann's claims. Bernard Levine, noted knife expert and author claims the term "Penny Knife" is a modern one. I don't agree with his analysis as I have found references to Penny Knives in 18th century literature, but like I said earlier it was used to describe a cheap knife be that fixed or folding variety.

As was mentioned already the style of knife that most of us identify as a Penny Knife bears a lot of similarity to the ones produced in Trattenbach Austria, a knifemaking center that has roots well into the medieval period. These are still being produced in Trattenbach today by the only surviving factory, but they claim that this pattern was being produced as early at the 17th century. I have found examples of this type, with slightly different characteristics that were produced in Poland and other areas as well. Since the basic style of this knife can be traced back to the Roman era it is not surprising to me that they might have been produced in many places around the world and exported to other areas, perhaps America as well. If not that it is not too hard to believe that some of the immigrants that came here no doubt carried them. As thin as the blades one these things are they would never have held up if made out of a simple piece of low grade iron, just would not happen. On a few of the ones that I have made I have used blister steel, I think this is a reasonable choice for a simple knife like these. Further refining the blister to grades of shear steel would probably have been reserved for better quality knives and tools.

 

[Straekat]

Nice going in dismissing the work of numerous archaeologists who reported information that runs counter to your way of thinking. One, two, or a few more could be wrong, but when someone dismisses every report that doesn't agree with their way of thinking, indicates someone whose ideas are fixed, and IMO, not worth trying to convince otherwise.

The linked article was a brief reporting on a museum related website and not intended as either an interim or final report. It's a news item informing the public of the presence of an iron knife (and apparently an iron axe also) at a specific site. That information is enough for a professional (any field) who wants further information to contact the museum for provenance, details on lab tests if such was done, provenance and dating details, etc.

You asked for information on iron knives. The French ship "La Belle" sank off the coast of Texas in 1685, and was discovered in 1995. See this link for information on the ship and it's importance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Belle_(ship)

Not long after the La Belle was discovered, Jim Bruseth, the chief archaeologist for the State of Texas began a state and federally funded archaeological excavation and recovery of the wreck. Literally, no expenses were spared on the excavation, conservation, lab work, various tests, and conservation of the ship and the contents. Bruseth's team recovered 32 folding knives of French manufacture that were subjected to lab tests and conservation. They are positively identified as iron, not steel.

The preserved ship and many of the contents are displayed and stored in the Bullock State Museum in Austin, Tx. The museum is owned and operated by the State of Texas. You can call for Doctor James Bruseth at the museum and ask him directly about his reporting on IRON KNIVES. The Museum's phone number is (512) 936-8746.

The Williamsburg reference deals with woodworking tools intended for American/European woodworkers who needed, used, and were willing to pay for specific tools used in their trade. Although it may have relevance to the use of KNIVES used by farmers, frontiersmen, or Indians who wanted a knife and not a drawknife, drill bits, handsaw or other woodworking tools they might not need on a daily basis.

Archaeologists describe and report what they observe and have found. If they attempt to force preconceived ideas on what they are discussing, that's the source of problems. You can dismiss the interpretation, you can't dismiss the presence of identified objects that have been lab-tested and contents verified through XRF and other analytical means.

When one, two, or a few more say something, it's possible they are wrong. However, when there are dozens of professional archaeologists who found and reported IRON knives, I find that much harder to be as dismissive of as you are towards them.

 

[Stophel]

I, personally, simply don't trust the infallible ability of archaeologists to be able to tell the difference between a rusty lump of iron and a rusty lump of steel. They are archaeologists, not metallurgists, blacksmiths, or knifesmiths.

I will gladly assent that the farther back in time you go, the more expensive steel was, and the more restricted its use was, but I would never agree to something like, say, owning a steel-bladed, steel-sprung folding knife in 1750 was the equivalent to driving a Mercedes today.

I have a German hunting sword, ca. 1750, of average grade. Not a huge money item. Probably not "cheap" the way we see things as being cheap today, but available to people who didn't spend all their money on internet service, Netflix, and cell phones. The crossguard is iron, forged in a die, with very little cleanup work done to it. The blade itself is rather nice, and with a file, I can tell the hardness is probably in the Rc51-53 range (I can't damage it with a quick file stroke any more than it already is! ). The guard is considerably softer. Like butter. I don't think some here realize just how soft iron really is.

"Cast iron", such as is used for cookware and engine blocks, is actually VERY high carbon steel. (any iron alloy with carbon in it is steel). Wrought iron, real iron, as was used in previous centuries, is S O F T, and doesn't really resemble modern "cast iron" at all. Even modern mild steel is harder and stiffer than iron (hence its use).

 

[Black Hand]

I, personally, simply don't trust the infallible ability of archaeologists to be able to tell the difference between a rusty lump of iron and a rusty lump of steel. They are archaeologists, not metallurgists, blacksmiths, or knifesmiths.

That may be, but the equipment they use to analyze excavated items doesn't care. Equipment shows data which conclusively and impartially identifies the analyte and its components while microscopic inspection can show carbon distribution suggesting iron vs. steel. Frankly speaking, none of those mentioned can identify anything without the equipment & analysis, and blacksmiths and knifesmiths wouldn't really be qualified to do the analysis anyways. This leaves us with the analysis done by scientists as the only true and conclusive analysis. This isn't an early 20th century visual inspection and educated guesses...

 

[44-henry]

Getting back to the La Belle, it is my understanding that the knives found in the wreck were basically dissintigrated to the point that the only useful data came from resin casts made in the voids left behind in the sediment. I have not seen any metallurgical analysis of the materials, one of the archeologists theorized that the knives probably were iron because the resin castings they had made failed to show a joint line where a steel blade would have been welded to an iron tang. That is interesting speculation on their part. The same document, a published thesis, provided a description of the process used to fabricate a knife, the errors in that alone were enough to make me question the validity of anything the author wrote regarding material science. One thing that was shown in the casts is the knives all had makers marks which suggests to me they were the work of professional cutlers. Given what they were doing it makes absolutely no sense to me that they would be trading inferior quality goods to the natives and settlers. Once word got out, and it would have, of the inferior manure that they were peddling their futures would be in doubt. History shows the Native Americans were shrewd traders and it would not have been a good business practice to try and pawn off an item as worthless as a low carbon iron knife.

If you know of any actual evidence to share here that proves your point I would very much like to see it. For those who want to read the thesis I mentioned you can find it at the link below.

http://nautarch.tamu.edu/Theses/abstracts/feulner.html

 

[44-henry]

Getting back to the original post, here is one of my penny knives. This is patterned off of ones that I have seen that I suspect might have been 18th century examples, but might have been later. This knife uses plain blister steel that I made myself. With most of these I use either 1095 or O1 (both of which are far superior), but since it was going to be my personal knife I thought why not. Truthfully it made a good blade and holds an edge very well. Also it does make a very good patch knife.

 

[Bo T]

"Cast iron", such as is used for cookware and engine blocks, is actually VERY high carbon steel. (any iron alloy with carbon in it is steel). Wrought iron, real iron, as was used in previous centuries, is S O F T, and doesn't really resemble modern "cast iron" at all. Even modern mild steel is harder and stiffer than iron (hence its use).

This isn't true. The modern defining feature of steel is that it has less than 2% carbon. One could just as inaccurately say steel is just low carbon cast iron. Again, wrought iron can be work hardened to the point that it is just as good or better than work hardened bronze. However, it becomes difficult to apply or modern definitions to the metals made centuries ago. One way is to measure samples of metal that is believed to be wrought iron. I am guessing that was how one site determined that wrought iron could have up to 0.25% C. Another set the limit at 0.2 % C.

 

[Stophel]

wrought iron with 0.25% carbon content????

 

[Bo T]

wrought iron with 0.25% carbon content????

https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=9555

 

[Black Hand]

wrought iron with 0.25% carbon content????

https://www.thefabricator.com/artic...ontent-steel-classifications-and-alloy-steels

https://www.britannica.com/technology/wrought-iron

https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=9555
Iron, Fe 99-99.8%
Carbon, C 0.05-0.25%

"Wrought iron is an iron alloy with a very low carbon (less than 0.08%) content in contrast to cast iron (2.1% to 4%). It is a semi-fused mass of iron with fibrous slag inclusions (up to 2% by weight), which gives it a "grain" resembling wood that is visible when it is etched or bent to the point of failure."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrought_iron

 

[Stophel]

I was reading a decimal placement wrong, sorry.

 

[Stophel]

The dizzying array of modern alloy classifications is irrelevant, I think, and a bit of a red herring. With the point being the difference between hardenable, carbon-alloyed steel, and non-hardenable (minimal "work hardening" notwithstanding) wrought iron.

 

[Black Hand]

The dizzying array of modern alloy classifications is irrelevant, I think, and a bit of a red herring. With the point being the difference between hardenable, carbon-alloyed steel, and non-hardenable (minimal "work hardening" notwithstanding) wrought iron.

I can't digest the information for you - provided for your own edification (no such thing as too much information in my book). The steels were provided more for comparison of carbon content (and other trace element) with that of wrought iron.

 

[Bo T]

If you know of any actual evidence to share here that proves your point I would very much like to see it. For those who want to read the thesis I mentioned you can find it at the link below.
http://nautarch.tamu.edu/Theses/abstracts/feulner.html

The thesis does a good job of supporting straekat's hypothesis. First, the analysis of the ax heads does a good job indicating that a steel bit was not used (however, a competent blacksmith could add one later). Solid steel ax heads did not seem to exist during that time period. Following that, the analysis of the imprints of the knife blades as having no bit also indicated a solid iron blade. Again a solid steel blade would have been too expensive for that time period. Of note, the author indicated that post 1750 axes had a steel bit.

 

[Stophel]

My digestive system works just fine, thank you.

 

[Black Hand]

My digestive system works just fine, thank you.

Your avatar might suggest otherwise...