General Purpose pocket knife smooth handle

[Misfit 45]

Here's an odd pocket knife similar to robinb's knife posted in December. His is in nicer condition. The only difference between mine and his, is the blade on mine says "Made in USA", rather than simply "USA" on his.

It has a Kingston/U.S. 45 marked clevis.

It is in the first version arrangement. (screw driver and main blade on same end of knife)
The screw driver is slender and has no lift stud.

The can opener has a beveled edge

 

All these features are consistent with the familiar "Kingston/U.S. 45" except for the smooth, uncheckered handle.

There are no photos of this knife in the 160 pages of military documentation that dustin posted on the Knife, Pocket, General Purpose. It could be a prototype, but the bevel on the can opener is considered a later feature. This and the 1945 date does not rule it out as a prototype candidate because the Army was still making decisions and making recommendations late into 1945. Interesting non-the-less.

Marv

[Misfit 45]

Here's another pic.

[sactroop]

Nice Marv. I've seen what appears to be anomalies with other Kingston knives and the bevel/no-bevel can openers. At this point I'm just wondering if it may have been as simple as what was sitting in the bin the assembler reached into and how often the bin got emptied before another worker came by to add more parts to that bin. (???)

These un-obtrusive little knives get more interesting the longer we look at them.

[Misfit 45]

sactroop,

It would seem that the "U.S. 45" marked knives, are early 1945 rather than later,since the screw driver,on most if not all of these "US 45" marked knives, does not have the lift stud. The early pictures of the test knives do not have the stud. Yet the bevel on the can opener was clearly a documented change that occurred later. This may have been a later knife that was used to test the viability of using smooth grips simply to save the production cost of checkering the grips. So, we have a knife with first arrangement blades, no stud on screw driver and a later can opener, all wrapped in smooth steel. It remains a mystery.

Marv

[sactroop]

Based on my personal observations I find the stated chronology that the new can opener started out without the beveled edge and this was later modified somewhat problematic.

Borrowing from Michael Wiedemann’s chart for many of these steel scaled knives he documented from WW2 to 2003, I’ll refer to the 1st arrangement knives as the ones with the screwdriver blade beside the main spearpoint blade, and the 2nd arrangement knives as having the can opener beside the main blade.

At present I’m looking at three 1st arrangement knives that have beveled can opener blades. Two of them are marked “U.S. MARINE CORPS” and the other is a knife with the Kingston marked shackle and checkered scales that are otherwise sterile. Beside those three knives is a 2nd arrangement “U.S. MARINE CORPS” Kingston knife with the non-beveled can opener.

I have to keep in mind that before the Army formed this study group to decide on an improved general purpose knife, the U.S. Marine Corps had already approved a new knife with metal scales and had stated the intention for it to be provided to all Marines in the field. So in making observations and comparisons I may in fact be comparing apples to oranges.

It might be that in seeking patterns for the Army’s evaluations they purposely choose to start out with a can opener without the beveled edge and a screwdriver without a stud, possibly for the sake of reducing the cost of the knife.

I have to admit that I’m still wading thru all of the pages of the report that Dustin so generously provided to us. It’s turned out to be rather slow going, and I find I have had to set it aside and return to it.

Within the pages of the report are some questionable statements. For instance, at one point where reference is made to the new Marine Corp knife described as having a locking screwdriver blade.

Camillus reported in having provided electrician knives to the U.S. Marine Corps with a shield marked U.S.M.C. instead of TL-29 in 1943, and could be the knife being referred to. However the statement could also be referring to the recently adopted general purpose knife that I for one have never seen an example with a locking screwdriver blade.

That the committee recommended in 1945 the the studs on the screwdriver blade be reduced in size is interesting, as much for we don’t see any examples of this happening until well after the War as anything. Perhaps the companies involved in producing the knife for the Marines had a stockpile of the screwdriver blades with the larger stud and the War ended before any changes were implemented.

 

[Misfit 45]

I agree with what you are saying especially when comparing Marine Corps knives with Army knives. It is just as likely that the Marine Corps knives, being first into production had already beveled the can opener even before the change to the second arrangement. That explains the many examples that are found like that. It is also possible that Kingston, making both Army and Marine knives, made them concurrently and used the same parts for each knife regardless of separate minor requirements. The end of the production line then slapped on the appropriate scales for the Marine or Army destination. If the Marines had the beveled can opener many months before the Army requirements, then your (sactroop) suggestion of that "bottom of the barrel" scenario would seem plausible. In that case you might find later knives having square cut can opener blades (bottom of the barrel), and earlier Army can opener blades having beveled edges (which were supposedly intended for the Marine Corps knives). Keeping in mind that the only documents we have are from SOME Army sources with little information from the Marines and NO information from Kingston itself. I think the real story would be told by undiscovered Kingston documents. Fat Chance.

Marv

[Misfit 45]

sactroop,

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the appearance of the beveled or non beveled can opener cannot be determined by the mere edict of a few Army documents. One thing that dawned on me is during the "bottom of the barrel" scenario, where the barrel kept being filled with can opener blades, with the earlier blades being on the bottom. The assembly men simply grabbed the openers at the top of the barrel which had the newest blades on top. I noticed something that should have been obvious to me, that the first arrangement can opener blades cannot be used on a second arrangement knife because the blades are "crinked" differently. So in order for the "bottom of the barrel" theory to be correct, the barrel would have to be in the bending station where the can opener blades are crinked, and not at the assembly station. That's why you can have a second arrangement knife with a square cut can opener. They got to the bottom of the barrel where the square cut can opener blades had languished for so long, and bent the blades for use on the second arrangement knives.

Also, in the past, I would reassure my self that a first arrangement knife would certainly not be a post war (commercial) assembly because the second arrangement simply made more sense. Why would Kingston make the inferior first arrangement knife? Well, they finally came to the bottom of the barrel an realized they could not make second arrangement knives with first arrangement can openers. Rather than re-crinking the can opener blade, they simply made first arrangement knives with the obsolete can opener blades. So, I reluctantly have to admit that many of the steel knives we see with all the anomalous features may very well be explained as having been assembled after WWII.

Marv

[sactroop]

Certainly the 1st arrangement Kingston knife with the sterile scales and the beveled can opener could be explained as a possible early test knife, (real low odds), or more likely a post War parts knife. At least I believe we've come up with a new justification that I need to get a lot more of the variations of these knives. It's been my experience that when it comes to the WW2 metal scale utility knives, I've run across more U.S. MARINE CORPS examples than the U.S. marked examples, but that just might be how my luck has run so far.

When it comes to the U.S. marked knives, (especially Kingston's), have others here found the 1st arrangement knives about as common as the 2nd arrangement versions?

[Misfit 45]

Ok......are you are suggesting something that I do not recall ever seeing? Have you seen a Kingston marked clevis on a knife which also has US marked scales? The only WWII general purpose knives (that I have seen) with US marked on the scales are Stevenson knives. As far as 1st and 2nd version knives go, I agree with you that they are about equal in availability (speaking strictly about WWII brass liner knives). And yes, it is our duty to collect every combination of Utility/General Purpose knives as possible, in order to promote and educate the collecting world....and also to annoy our wives.

Marv

[sactroop]

No, absolute brain dump on my part when I wrote that last question. What I wanted to do in the last question was focus on the knives that aren't part of the U.S. MARINE CORPS production. Sometimes I feel like the guy at the circus who's spinning all those plates on long sticks. I got to remind myself that no matter how hungry you get, you got to eat the elephant one bite at a time.

[dustin]

Here is a letter that helps substantiate some of your speculation. As you may know Kingston was a puppet company of the Ulster and Imperial knife companies. Basically what it's saying is.... get it done! whatever it takes!

With rushed expedited production your going to have mixed matched inconsistent parts I'm sure. Assembly of these knives would had been conducted at least two different locations, what is the likelihood that they have slightly different parts?! Chances are pretty good. Though it doesn't say specifically, I'm pretty sure the knife in point is the stainless steel utility type. It is April 1945 and coincides with USMC procurements of it.

 

 

[Misfit 45]

Thanks again dustin,

That one is going into the data base. There is a lot to glean from this letter. Thanks.

Marv