The online community of knife collectors, A Knife Family Forged in Steel
Something I’ve noted (perhaps, imagined) with split back whittlers and the passing of time. The grind on the primaries used to retain more of the stout thickness inherent in the design.
That btm one is a Waterville. It’s a saber spear blade grind .. and it is stout.
The Schrade in the middle was mid~late 40’s production. It’s a std spear blade grind. You still cannot tell where the tang stops & the blade grind begins .. top view anyway.
The top one is Queens current production #48. It has a clip blade grind .. no problem telling where the tang stops & the blade grind begins on that one !!!
I don’t get it .. have the primary be 2~3 times as thick (robust) as the secondary’s .. by design !!!
Then purposely grind it down to the flimsier thickness of the secondary’s .. right after the tang ??
Is this something you folks also see in your whittlers ???
What about the Warncliffe blade grind ???
Thanks, that makes sense
I know what you mean about the clearance issues .. but check it out .. there aren't any !!!!
That Waterville on the btm is 100 yrs old and there's no wear to indicate the blades have been touching .. tolerances are tight on that one !!!
One can begin to see more clearance between the blades on the Schrade in the middle.
That Queen should never have one blade touch another .. it just seems excessive clearance @ the loss of blade strength on the primary ?!?!?
I guess my question is ..... Given the fact that a whittler ..by design.. requires the primary to be ~ twice as thick as either secondary .. why waste any more of that added sturdiness addressing clearance issues than absolutely neccesary ???
I understand exactly what you are saying and it makes sense to me but in looking at your knives last week I dont remember the gaps being as prominant as we are seeing here. So I wonder if Dales question is very valid
Is the increased tolerance to more readily facilitate mass productions...perhaps???