"History" of the MIL-K Steel Pocket Knives?

[thorin6]

Please critic the "history" of the steel pocket knives offered by this ebay seller. Some of his narration appears to border on the absurd IMHO.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Demolitions-Demo-K...=item19d2f155cd

[sactroop]

More correct than wrong over all but wouldn't award an A for the paper.

1949 is the first year Camillus made these knives. Prior to that they did provide a similar knife with bone scales generally called an engineer's knife.

The first all Stainless Steel knives were made in 1957 or 1958 as I recall.

Does look like a WW2 piece. Maybe an unnamed Kingston?

[Misfit 45]

This looks like an early US Marine Corps WWII knife. It has the early feature of the Main blade and screw driver on the same side. This was discontinued soon after the first runs in 1944. It was most likely made by Kingston which usually marked the bail with the name.

Marv

[Misfit 45]

In another post, here's what Bayonetman says:

 

Jul 12 2010, 06:44 PM

According to all the references that I have, only two companies made the WW2 stainless steel 4 blade pocket knife Knife, Pocket, General Purpose (ancestor of todays MIL-K 818). These were Kingston (a "paper" company which was the joint production of Imperial and Ulster), and Stevenson Manufacturing of Rochester, New York.

 

Kingston had both USMC and Army contracts, while Stevenson had only an Army contract. So all U.S. Marine Corps marked knives are made by Kingston. Early ones are like the one in the photo, with the screwdriver blade on the same end as the Master blade, while later ones had it on the opposite end like the MIL-K 818. Some are marked Kingston on the bail/clevis/shackle (take your choice) while others are unmarked. As far as I can see, the Army version (which is later than the Marine) all had the screwdriver blade on the opposite end to the Master.

[thorin6]

Just a few extracted comments from the ebay listing.

 

"Decades ago, the rumor got started that because the knife in question was stainless steel, it was non-magnetic and therefore could be used to de-activate mines without setting them off."

I've never heard of this, and I carried one of these knives for 14 years. I was a combat engineer and we called them Demo knives because they were issued with our demolitions sets.

 

"During the first years of production, each knife was stamped with an individual serial number."

I don't think I've ever heard of a steel pocket knife being stamped with an individual serial number.

 

"This knife does not have a date of manufacture or a serial number on the main blade, but it does have the brass center lines making it manufactured before 1949 when the brass was replaced with stainless steel. 1949 was also the year Camillus switched from placing serial numbers to dates, so this knife may have been missed during the change-over."

From Gary Cunningham's research, we can be fairly certain this is a 1944 manufactured knife (so it was manufactured prior to 1949), but the 1949 proto-type made by Camillus in 1949 had brass spacers so there was no change to steel spacers at that time. Camillus did begin their 1957 production (I believe) with steel spacers and all MIL-K knives made after that time had steel spacers. Also, to the best of my knowledge, Camillus didn't make any steel knives prior to 1949, only made a few (probably less than ten) in 1949, and began their first run on manufacturing steel knives in 1957. And not to belabor the point, but there was no change from serial numbers to dates in 1949.

 

I could go on, but instead I'll just rephrase my original comment to say that the narration is certainly fancilful.

[elbertson]

The seller's write up on it is very misleading and in part pure BS. People who pass on so called information without researching the topic at hand aren't really helping anyone. This forum contains just about as much information on these knives as any other source, in my opinion...just spread out in various threads.

[sactroop]

When I read over the sellers description it wasn't hard for me to think that this person could very well be writing just what they believed to be true. I do agree that these specific beliefs are fraught with legend. There are those who will deliberately spin the biggest fish story they can to get the best price and those who just don't have the passion to check and verify what are and what are not facts.

This is another example of why it's said to "buy the knife and not the story".

 

So why we’re on this subject how about some more pictures of your 49 Camillus? Hint, hint.

 

I wonder how many sales like this lead to new members on this forum?

[thorin6]

When I read over the sellers description it wasn't hard for me to think that this person could very well be writing just what they believed to be true. I do agree that these specific beliefs are fraught with legend. There are those who will deliberately spin the biggest fish story they can to get the best price and those who just don't have the passion to check and verify what are and what are not facts.

This is another example of why it's said to "buy the knife and not the story".

 

So why we’re on this subject how about some more pictures of your 49 Camillus? Hint, hint.

 

I wonder how many sales like this lead to new members on this forum?

I was going to do a thread on the two versions of the US MARINE CORPS knife when I ran into this item on ebay. I picked up a second one this past week and was going to keep the better of the two when I realized I had both the 1944 and 1945 versions, and there are some significant differences in the two, not counting the positions of the blades. I'll still do that when I get around to cleaning my photo area off and can take the pictures.

Ah, my 1949 Camillus; it's around here somewhere (actually, it's one of my favorite knives, so I know where it is at all times). I'll dig it out and take some better pictures than I did last time, along with the pictures of the two US MARINE CORPS knives.

[usmc269]

I want to thank you all for this discussion. Everyone's input helped me greatly in my purchase this weekend of a 1944 Kingston. The seller did not know that it was a 1944 model, but thanks to your information I did, and was able to get what I feel was a bargain. I appreciate what I have learned here about these knives.

[camillus]

this listing reminds me of what I think when I read a story like that, a quote by Bernard Levine "buy the knife not the story"

[NAFix]

Getting in a little late on this discussion, but I just picked up a second one of this type/age knife and need some clarification. The two knives shown below seem identical except for markings and absence of markings. Both have the screwdriver blade and master blade pivoting at the same end. If I'm reading Misfit 45's post right, that would make them both early (1944) Kingston contract knives made for the USMC, because the Army version, which came later, had the screwdriver and master on opposing ends. And herein lies my question: Are they only considered U.S. Marine Corps knives if so marked? Or are they still USMC knives without the marking but marked "Kingston" with the right blade configuration. The top knife in the pictures below is marked "Kingston" on the bail, but not marked "U.S. Marine Corps." The bottom knife does not have the Kingston mark, but is marked "U.S. Marine Corps." So, were these both made for the U.S. Marine Corps in 1944 by Kingston? Anyone have any idea which came first??

 

 

 

 

[NAFix]

I'm obviously too stupid to use this forum. In trying to get photos to appear by "editing" the original post, I posted the same message a second time, still without the photo. The photo was under 251K, a number and file name popped up just like it was supposed to, but refuses to appear. so much for following instructions.

[NAFix]

Trying again. Just the pics....if they show up, see above...

 

 

[thorin6]

Looking at the second photo in post #13, they are both 1944 vintage, and the bottom marked one is USMC and the top unmarked one is US Army.

[NAFix]

Thanx thorin6. That's kind of what I would have thought, and that's what caused my confusion, based on Misfit 45's post from 10 July 2012 (#4), where he said: "As far as I can see, the Army version (which is later than the Marine) all had the screwdriver blade on the opposite end to the Master." Both of these knives have the screwdriver blade and the master attached on the same end, and that's what made me think they both must be USMC. I guess the question then, is, Did Kingston make any for the USMC that were not marked "U.S. Marine Corps?"

[Misfit 45]

Hi Folks,

First of all, Thorin6 is absolutely correct. My post of four years ago quoted bayonetman, but alas, his information was not entirely correct. The US Marine Corps knife was the first of these knives and was made by Kingston. Some are marked and some not (with the Kingston name). They had the main blade and the screw driver on the same side. The Army version was marked Kingston on the bail with no markings on the scales. You can also find the Army knife with Kingston-45 on the bail. However, many of the Army version were totally unmarked. As with the Marine knife, they too had the main blade and the screw driver on the same side.

These two knives are called the "first arrangement". Soon after, the "second arrangement" came into production. They too were either marked or unmarked with the Kingston name (on the bail). The screw driver and the main blade were on opposite ends.

In answer to one of your questions, there is no indication that the "Army" version was issued to USMC troops, keeping in mind that any exceptions to the rule should be considered possible. The US Marine Corps knife is always so marked on the scales. Hope this clears a few things up.

Marv

[NAFix]

Like I said, I came to this discussion late, but now the distinction I was looking for is clear. Nice to know I have a couple of the "first arrangement" knives. And there may be more amid the various boxes of years of yardsaling I have yet to sort. Every now and then I stumble across something I forgot I had......

[bayonetman]

As mentioned my post of a few years ago is somewhat out of date.

 

I don't collect them, but have a couple that have come to me with a veteran's grouping.

 

One interesting one (at least to me) is an Army first variation. It is marked somewhat differently than others I have seen. I picked it up at a flea market, and later sold it to a more advanced collector of these knives.

 

 

 

[NAFix]

Thanx everyone. I didn't know there was so much more to know about these knives! I appreciate all the info and a PM from Misfit 45, and I am reminded again how friendly and willing to share their knowledge collectors are.

[thorin6]

By the way, here are five versions of the WWII steel knives. The first four I believe are Kingston (first two are 1944, second two are 1945; see the positions of the screwdriver and can opener), the last one is marked Stevenson on the bail.

 

[NAFix]

And the knowledge just keeps on coming. Great photos, by the way. So the net of one yard sale today was three modern MIL-K-818s, one Queen from 1986. And then on seeing them my friend and knife competitor/fellow yardsaler reminded me that he had once offered a Stevenson for trade, a couple years ago, when I was much less knowledgeable of these. (Mentally kicked myself) I'd had that in the back of my mind, but thought it was a Kingston.....he's since traded it to another yardsaler....may have to see if he wants to trade....

[2MOB]

I have a little quandry here.  I do a lot of ebay shopping due to disabilities, and came across this 1949 Camillus.  This is something I really have been looking a long time for.  But the more I checked it out, the more it looked a little screwy.  I would like your opinions and input, if you dont mind, since I have never actually seen a 1949....

First thing,  no bail (clevis).  One side I see the pins seem to be spread, possibly meaning they were removed, replaced, or banged down after a bail was lost.   The next thing, was there is only one blade and the screwdriver/bottlecap opener.  No other blades!  I never saw any MIL-K 818 with only 2 blades!  Now this is currently on ebay and the seller does not seem to normally sell collector knives.   I would guess they may be selling on consignment or are genuinely ignorant of the problems with this knife.  What do you guys think?

[sactroop]

As an owner of a 1949 Camillus, I'll stick my neck out a little bit.  

First I'd recommend checking out this thread on the site.  

Next we can file this under JIMHO category.

First it is a parts knife.

Second I can't see enough detail regarding the screwdriver/bottle opener blade, but the 1949 Camillus correct part has a stud on it that is unique to that version of the knife and I've never seen it duplicated on any other version of the MIL-K-818 type knives.

Yes the correct knife has a bail that would also be very hard to match.

The main blade being in such good shape and correct for a 1949 Camillus will probably bring a pretty high price in and of itself, but it would be a shame if a novice buyer paid too much for a knife they mistakenly believe to be correct.

[thorin6]

As another owner of a 1949 Camillus I agree with sactroop, it's most likely a parts knife, and the only original part is the main blade.  It does not look like there is a stud on the screw driver/bottle opener, and the clevis is also special to the 1949 in its metallurgy (nickel steel, non-magnetic).  And, of course, it's missing the awl and can opener besides the clevis.

[collector]

Very informative thread, thanks all.