[Jacknola]

When Joe first posted that knife with the single picture, no explanation, I e-mailed Ron my thoughts. My opinion was dominated by the etched trademark. Absent that I probably would not have had an opinion. Note: I've probably spent more time looking at RMK trademarks on the blades than most people, though mostly the Vietnam era. Blade stamps are one of the first things I look at.

My original comment:

"Joe posted a knife "older hunter." My comments: The stamp appears to be etched which wasn't used until 1963. The handle is just jammed on, no solder, doesn't even fit well. The knife blade is probably a counterfeit fake. Handle is from god knows where. Probably not a true RMK."

Well... after the fact it was revealed that the trademark was etched later. Not fair.. but it does point out that knives can be tricked out and have features added or subtracted, or posed with fake props, put in different sheaths with misleading symbols, dates, or whatever added, etc. I do think that there is a lot that can be learned by extending the "blade stamp logo" study I did on the Vietnam era back to the beginning. I would suspect there is a forensic difference in the first stamps that could be identified, just as there is for the ones used during Vietnam.

I understand the need, but I'm conflicted about the wisdom of adding the etched trade mark to this knife. I hope there is a signed letter from the shop that will accompany it in the future.

Second curious question is ... where did this knife come from, and what is its history? I would have thought this knife would already have been pretty widely discussed by the early RMK collectors. Perhaps I missed that though...