Choctaw Dan Posted January 21 #1 Posted January 21 There have been several threads lately about the USN Mark I knives. I have a nearly-complete collection, so here are the pics: . Colonial, including the extremely rare prototypes: Close-up of the "clear-handle" prototypes. Colonial made a few of these clear-handled knives for the War Department to demonstrate how the blade and handle were joined. The handles have gradually turned to a tannish-brown color. So far, only a dozen or so of these knives are known to exist. Next, the three versions of the "regular" Colonial Mark I's, ranged top down. The only difference between versions 1 and 2 is the lead weight placed in the version 2 handle. The one on the bottom is a current-day reproduction. Note the intentional differences that clearly identify it as a repro. Next are the ones made by Robeson Shuredge. Note the wooden pommels on the middle and bottom knives. Next come the Boker (left) and Geneva Forge (middle and right) Mark I's. The middle one has a wood pommel. Here are some from Camillus. As with their Mark II's, there were little if any variations in their production Mark I's. Here is a prewar Remington, a PAL private-purchase knife, and two PAL RH-35 Mark I's. Again note the wood pommel on the far right. Two KaBar Mark I's and a named KaBar private purchase knife. Detail of the plate on the KaBar's pommel. The "1st Recc. Troop", as far as I've determined, refers to the First Cavalry Reconnaisance Troop of the Third Cavalry Group, First Infantry Division. They saw considerable action in North Africa, then in Sicily and Normandy.
sactroop Posted January 21 #3 Posted January 21 Dan it looks like your clear handled Colonial MK1 had babies. 😀 At least I only remember seeing pictures of just the one.
Choctaw Dan Posted January 21 Author #4 Posted January 21 7 minutes ago, sactroop said: Dan it looks like your clear handled Colonial MK1 had babies. 😀 At least I only remember seeing pictures of just the one. They just keep finding me, and I have to give them a home!😄 I sold the bottom one to another collector. Then yet ANOTHER one made itself known to me! I have now owned four of them in total.
Manky bandage Posted January 21 #5 Posted January 21 Looks like you have the sister to my Camillus blade, a fantastic collection you have going. My one and only, the blade finish and sheath markings I find a bit odd, I seem to remember someone mentioning ''bright blade''.
SKIPH Posted January 21 #6 Posted January 21 Istarted actually finding these locally about 10 years ago, mostly the Raleigh Militaria show. I do like the MK1s, due to all the different handle types. Have a few more than what is pictured, to include a bright blade Camillus. SKIP
Choctaw Dan Posted January 21 Author #7 Posted January 21 The Mark I was my first "serious" collection for the variety of blades and handles. They were also comparatively inexpensive.
WarBaby Posted January 21 #8 Posted January 21 Nice collection. Now to find a fullered blade Ka-Bar MK1 with the steel pommel - it never ends. 😂
John Parker Jr. Posted January 22 #9 Posted January 22 @Choctaw Dan , you can add this Ka-Bar to your USN MK1 collection as well 😁
Choctaw Dan Posted January 22 Author #11 Posted January 22 The thing about Mark I's is that they were a "hurry-up" initiative for the Navy. They would, and did, accept just about any currently--manufactured knife with a single edged 5 1/4" (or thereabouts) blade. That is a major cause of their diverse nature.
dustin Posted January 22 #12 Posted January 22 4 hours ago, Choctaw Dan said: The thing about Mark I's is that they were a "hurry-up" initiative for the Navy. They would, and did, accept just about any currently--manufactured knife with a single edged 5 1/4" (or thereabouts) blade. That is a major cause of their diverse nature. I would push back on that a little bit, under the formal designation as a Mark I there were established basic minimum requirements, as established by drawing and procurement specifications. Any knife pattern that met those basic criteria would then be approved and qualified to bid. Any formal Mark I you see had met the Bureau of Ordnance standards. It was not a loosey-goosey system i.e. "hurry up", 'accept just about any", which may have that appearance due to variation from one contractor to another. Earlier procurement schedules, pre Mark I, introduced a larger variety of knife that were then classified as "Hunting". In the exhibition of your collection a few of those are "hunting" knives and not true Mark I's and obtained through a mired of other procurement agencies as well.
Choctaw Dan Posted January 22 Author #13 Posted January 22 What I wrote before was oversimplified, yes, but it still holds. Compare the variations among Mark I knives with those found in the knives of the second Navy Dept. contract -- the Mark II.
dustin Posted January 22 #14 Posted January 22 5 minutes ago, Choctaw Dan said: What I wrote before was oversimplified, yes, but it still holds. Compare the variations among Mark I knives with those found in the knives of the second Navy Dept. contract -- the Mark II. The Mark 1 and Mark 2 knives have no relation and are entirely different things. The Mark 2 did not supersede the Mark 1, in fact, the Mark 2 strangely precedes the Mark 1 in drawing and specification numbers, and were being procured congruently. The Mark 2 was specially modeled after the USMC 1219c2. Near all the contractors for the Mark 1 comply to the drawing in blade, pommel etc. , though each having their distinct nuances. They are all different when you observe every fine detail, but look at them generically they are the same. The Union Cutlery (Ka-Bar) is the only real odd man out, and not all of those are actually the Mark 1. They did engage in a contract under the auspices of the Mark 1 but not all their production was allocated to BuOrd contract. If you are coming from a mindset using Cole for reference it has an unfortunate consequence of being misleading, such an example are the Ka-Bar's with wood/flat pommel, those are not Mark 1's at all. You will develop a different perspective when you weed out the non Mark 1 types. It gets complicated for sure but it can be funneled down.
Choctaw Dan Posted January 22 Author #15 Posted January 22 Not my point. Mark I = many handles, many blades Mark II = tiny variations around a single design
dustin Posted January 22 #16 Posted January 22 40 minutes ago, Choctaw Dan said: Not my point. Mark I = many handles, many blades Mark II = tiny variations around a single design I see your point but, first I'd like to reiterate that the Mark 2 is an entirely different knife, unassociated. All the manufactures used a flat ground blade, except Camillus which was saber ground. the blade shape is all consistent. Now, if you were to compare finish, there is an answer to that, bright is early and later production to a treatment. The Mark 1 spec. had requirements for corrosion resistance but later revised it to a parkerized type finish. My point is that the Mark 1, those that are true Mark 1's, are consistent and are tiny variations as well. Agreed that there and many fun nuances to this pattern but argument launched to counter the opinion that it was the Wild Wild West , hurry up and the Navy took whatever they could get, Not Fact.
jerry_k Posted January 23 #18 Posted January 23 Definitely Dustin know what he is taliking my friend...
jerry_k Posted January 24 #20 Posted January 24 Dear friend, I see that you're new to this forum, but obviously, the photos of your collection prove that you're not new to the subject. It's great that seasoned enthusiasts like you are still joining the forum. That said, as an experienced collector, you should be familiar with Dustin. If you're not, take some time to read through his other threads on this forum and get acquainted with the books he's published in recent years. I dare say there isn't another person on this planet who has delved so deeply into the records at the National Archives. Based on official documents—not myths or assumptions—he has encapsulated an incredible wealth of knowledge in his books. Unfortunately, I must agree with Robin's statement that Dustin definitively knows what he's talking about—not because he's my buddy (I hope so, Dustin!) but because of the sheer volume of facts, original documents, orders, etc., that he has presented here since the very beginning of this forum in 2007. Perhaps you'll share similar insights, although you have a bit of catching up to do since 2007. Take care, Jerry
dustin Posted January 24 #21 Posted January 24 6 hours ago, jerry_k said: Dear friend, I see that you're new to this forum, but obviously, the photos of your collection prove that you're not new to the subject. It's great that seasoned enthusiasts like you are still joining the forum. That said, as an experienced collector, you should be familiar with Dustin. If you're not, take some time to read through his other threads on this forum and get acquainted with the books he's published in recent years. I dare say there isn't another person on this planet who has delved so deeply into the records at the National Archives. Based on official documents—not myths or assumptions—he has encapsulated an incredible wealth of knowledge in his books. Unfortunately, I must agree with Robin's statement that Dustin definitively knows what he's talking about—not because he's my buddy (I hope so, Dustin!) but because of the sheer volume of facts, original documents, orders, etc., that he has presented here since the very beginning of this forum in 2007. Perhaps you'll share similar insights, although you have a bit of catching up to do since 2007. Take care, Jerry Thanks for support Jerry and Robin, I try and stay humble Jerry and flattered to your comment but wouldn't flash any perceived credentials to bully in a conversation. I'm merely knowledgeable and continuously learning. I was trying to have a friendly persuasive argument to some long standing misconceptions, I was hoping for curiosity and additional inquiry that might had been enlightening to the diverse subject.
martin08 Posted January 24 #22 Posted January 24 Both some excellent pictorial and written content in this thread. Thanks to all.
Choctaw Dan Posted January 29 Author #23 Posted January 29 Look, folks, we have gotten off to a very bad start here. True, I did oversimplify my characterization of the Mark I's, but that did not alter the facts I was attempting to communicate. Things got worse when my attempt to clarify my intent by comparing the Mark I's and Mark II's -- merely to show the differences in product variation that the War Department deemed "acceptable" -- was apparently seen as attempting to equate Mark I's and Mark II's or to imply that one preceded/supplanted the other. Nope, and nope. I'll shut up now.
BryanJ Posted 17 hours ago #24 Posted 17 hours ago Choctaw Dan. I think your point was pretty clear, thanks for posting that superb collection. Of all the WWII military knives that we generally see discussed on this forum, the Mark I’s grew to be my favorite, not too big, not too small, and not too expensive in today’s market to round out a collection. The Mark I’s could be used effectively as a utility knife, a GI field knife, or fighting knife if need be. I really enjoyed seeing all the different varieties in your collection side-by-side. Thanks for posting.
conn Posted 5 hours ago #25 Posted 5 hours ago this collection is very nice and i appreciated you joining this place has a lot of input thank you all semper fi
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now