Are Randalls worht the price?

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Spfld03

unread,
Sep 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/20/97
to

I have been following Randall knifes on the action boards and they seem to
go for what they are advertised for in their catalog. Are they that collectable?
Or just that hard to get. But, the question remains "are they a good
knife" or just Collectable?

Thanks

Ken

Thomas Wilkinson

unread,
Sep 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/20/97
to

They are a good knife.
They are collectable.
They are overpriced in my opinion but obviously
worth the price to the people that buy them.
TW

Spfld03 <spf...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970920032...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...

Chas

unread,
Sep 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/20/97
to

I carried a 1960 Randall #1 in heavy and direct use and was very satisfied.
After the elder Randall passed away, it is my personal opinion that much
was lost in the new commercialism. The finish and presentation is the same
as any other factory knife, and less than some. The Blackjack knives were
just as good and just as well made.
I always found the elder Mr. Randall to be a gentleman and a true knife
aficionado.
Chas
Pukulan Pentjak Silat Kilap Betawi
a Royal Muslim Blading Art

Thomas Wilkinson <tamr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<6007qj$k...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...

jaukg

unread,
Sep 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/20/97
to

In article <19970920032...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, spf...@aol.com
says...

>
>I have been following Randall knifes on the action boards and they seem to
>go for what they are advertised for in their catalog. Are they that collectable?
>Or just that hard to get. But, the question remains "are they a good
>knife" or just Collectable?
>
>Thanks
>
>Ken


Ken;

all the "experts" are going to jump in here and tell you that this knife or that
one are JUST as good and just as collectable.

Ask that "expert" how many of those knives that they bought for $35 30 years ago
are now worth $1,500 or more. I think that you will find they have no answers.

Randalls are as collectable as knives can get and have many who collect them.

jaukg

Hugh Scott

unread,
Sep 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/20/97
to

Spfld03 <spf...@aol.com> wrote:

> I have been following Randall knifes on the action boards and they seem to
> go for what they are advertised for in their catalog. Are they that
> collectable? Or just that hard to get. But, the question remains "are they
> a good knife" or just Collectable?
>
> Thanks
>
> Ken

Randall's are a semi-production knife, with hand work done by a few
workers. I have a few Randals and am very pleased with them. They are
not the finest finished knife that you will see, but one that will
perform when you want it to. These may be collectable knives, but they
are also working knives. Some say that the Blackjack is just as good,
for my money, I'll get a Randall.


Hugh L. Scott Albuquerque, NM hls...@worldnet.att.net

Thomas Wilkinson

unread,
Sep 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/21/97
to


jaukg wrote in article <6016of$h...@drn.zippo.com>...

> >I have been following Randall knifes on the action boards and they seem
to
> >go for what they are advertised for in their catalog. Are they that
collectable?
> >Or just that hard to get. But, the question remains "are they a good
> >knife" or just Collectable?
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Ken
>
>

> Ken;
>
> all the "experts" are going to jump in here and tell you that this knife
or that
> one are JUST as good and just as collectable.
>
> Ask that "expert" how many of those knives that they bought for $35 30
years ago
> are now worth $1,500 or more. I think that you will find they have no
answers.
>
> Randalls are as collectable as knives can get and have many who collect
them.
>
> jaukg

Well MR.EXPERT if a person just wanted a knife to use there are MANY knives
JUST
as good or better than a Randall. Now collectable is a different story.
They surely are
and Randalls mastery of controlling the supply and the hype will surely
keep it that way.
Do you know which knives sell for $35 today that will be worth $1,500 or
more in 30 years?
If you did you'd have a warehouse full of them. But then maybe you do.
TW

Chas

unread,
Sep 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/21/97
to

Well; Scagel, Ruana, Nickles, Richtig, Moran.....and they're all one man
operations. Now if you had said..list some factory knives other than
Randall- well, I don't know
Chas
"It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!"

Thomas Wilkinson <tamr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article

<601umr$8...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...


>
>
> jaukg wrote in article <6016of$h...@drn.zippo.com>...
> > In article <19970920032...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> spf...@aol.com

snip))

Sam Nospam

unread,
Sep 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/21/97
to

On 21 Sep 1997 02:33:31 GMT, "Michael J Barnett"
<micha...@nnworldnet.att.net> wrote:

>I've got two Randalls and will probably buy another. They are expensive
>but when I look into my box of knives I will usually pick the Randall #5 to
>take with me. Bought a Blackjack once but sent it back the next day, it
>just didn't feel right in my hand or look to be first quality.

I agree. I have a #5 and love it. It was expensive, and maybe
overpriced but I love it. I looked into the Blackjacks and they
definatly are not of the same quality or workmanship. I feel the
Randall is a knife that I can use hard for years and then hand down to
my son.

Just a personal opinion. Others will disagree.


Michael J Barnett

unread,
Sep 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/21/97
to

I've got two Randalls and will probably buy another. They are expensive
but when I look into my box of knives I will usually pick the Randall #5 to
take with me. Bought a Blackjack once but sent it back the next day, it
just didn't feel right in my hand or look to be first quality. Just my
feelings. I don't care about the collectability, that's why I have a wine
cellar.
--
Michael J Barnett
remove(-no spam) to reply

Thomas Wilkinson

unread,
Sep 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/21/97
to


Chas <gryp...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<6022ea$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...


> Well; Scagel, Ruana, Nickles, Richtig, Moran.....and they're all one man
> operations. Now if you had said..list some factory knives other than
> Randall- well, I don't know
> Chas
> "It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!"

Chas let's put it this way.
Say you go to a reasonably large knife show.
Pick up a Randall. Say $300. Can you walk around
that show and find knives as good or actually better
for less money? I'd bet you could and you don't have
to look for big names. It's been discussed in this Ng
before. Collectability is determined demand not quality.
There are plenty of good knives out there that will never
reach the popularity of Randalls because it isn't 1965.
There are more knives available to collectors now
than there have ever been. It's a different ballgame.
TW

Michael J Barnett

unread,
Sep 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/21/97
to

Both my children are girls, so I'll end up seeing these Randalls go to
son-in-laws who won't appreciate them. One girl may be able to appreciate
hers but the other can't even be in the kitchen when you're cutting up a
chicken.

Michael J Barnett

unread,
Sep 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/21/97
to

Mike P. Swaim

unread,
Sep 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/21/97
to

"Thomas Wilkinson" <tamr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>There are plenty of good knives out there that will never
>reach the popularity of Randalls because it isn't 1965.
>There are more knives available to collectors now
>than there have ever been. It's a different ballgame.
>TW

That, right there, is probably the most interesting and thought
provoking thing that's ever been said in all of the many Randall
threads that this group has had over the past year.

Here are some questions for you Randall collectors:

1) Do you think Randalls would have achieved their popularity without
a series of wars and "police actions" around the globe to endear them
to the hearts and minds of servicemen?

2) Do you think that if one of the current Randall employees were to
branch out on his own, making *exactly* the same line, (same quality,
same materials), and offering them for 2/3 cost of genuine Randalls
with no wait, that they'd sell as well as genuine Randalls? If you
argue that Randalls sell because of the inherent quality, then the
same quality knife with a different name should sell just as well, but
I don't think anybody would really argue that such would be the case.

3) Do you think that Randalls will keep going up in collector value?
Or will the collector market tend to level off as the Baby Boomers age
and the name Randall doesn't evoke as many fond memories in the next
generations?

I'm most interested in #3. Not because I want to speculate on
Randalls, but just as insight into how you all perceive the knife
market. Chas. mentioned Ruanas and some others, and I'd bet that there
are plenty of folks reading this who've never heard of them.

How big a part of "collectibility" is simple name recognition?

BTW-- I'm totally neutral on Randall's as fuel for flame wars. I may
or may not have a couple of them, and I may or may not desire more.

MPS


Chas

unread,
Sep 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/21/97
to

1) Randall would not have attained the popularity without the connections
to the publishing industry (argosy,etc.), the initial money to set up a
'hobby' knifeworks with employees and rare materials, without the charisma
and charm of Bo Randall, and with no competition from other makers.
2) No, people who like Randall Knives like the visual i.d., the sheath look
and the cachet of the name being well known. The quality of the knife is
comparable to many others and less than some of the same pricing range.
3) Bo Randalls' own knives will continue to maintain and probably rise in
price. The knives made by his son are not as resaleable and have about the
same attraction as any other reasonably well made knife.
'Name Recognition' is a simplistic method to gauge one's 'collection'. But
then there are so many ways to define 'collection', 'collectors',
'collectable', &tc.
Relative to the 'flame war'; I have owned well over a hundred Randall
knives, I have carried several of them and one in particular (given me by
my father in 1961) in very dire circumstances. They are good knives;
nothing special, but good knives.
As a saddler, harnessmaker and case fitter by training and an active
artist/craftsman on a day to day basis, I use knives about as much as
anyone. As an appraiser, trader and collector, I buy and sell some knives
also.

Chas
"It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!"

Mike P. Swaim <mi*a...@cphl.mindspring.com> wrote in article
<6036se$h...@camel1.mindspring.com>...


> "Thomas Wilkinson" <tamr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >There are plenty of good knives out there that will never
> >reach the popularity of Randalls because it isn't 1965.

Mike:


> That, right there, is probably the most interesting and thought
> provoking thing that's ever been said in all of the many Randall
> threads that this group has had over the past year.

> 1) Do you think Randalls would have achieved their popularity without

> a series of wars (snip)> 2) Do you think that if one of the current
Randall employees were to branch out on his own and offering them for 2/3
cost of genuine Randalls (snip) 3) Do you think that Randalls will keep


going up in collector value?

HRLY BLADE

unread,
Sep 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/21/97
to

In article <19970920032...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
spf...@aol.com (Spfld03) writes:

>I have been following Randall knifes on the action boards and they seem to
>go for what they are advertised for in their catalog. Are they that
>collectable?
>Or just that hard to get. But, the question remains "are they a good
>knife" or just Collectable?
>
>Thanks
>
>Ken
>
>

something is worth what u can get out of it......... one side
i heard the ss randalls were not up to snuff........... the other side
harley
confussed???
harley

Thomas Wilkinson

unread,
Sep 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/22/97
to


Sam Nospam <st...@the.spam> wrote in article
<3425ad4b....@news.fast.net>...


> On 21 Sep 1997 02:33:31 GMT, "Michael J Barnett"
> <micha...@nnworldnet.att.net> wrote:
>

> >I've got two Randalls and will probably buy another. They are expensive
> >but when I look into my box of knives I will usually pick the Randall #5
to
> >take with me. Bought a Blackjack once but sent it back the next day, it
> >just didn't feel right in my hand or look to be first quality.
>

> I agree. I have a #5 and love it. It was expensive, and maybe
> overpriced but I love it. I looked into the Blackjacks and they
> definatly are not of the same quality or workmanship. I feel the
> Randall is a knife that I can use hard for years and then hand down to
> my son.
>
> Just a personal opinion. Others will disagree.

Don't be so quick to knock Blackjack.
They might be more collectable than Randall.
I saw a very well respected knife dealer in this
newsgroup double the value of Blackjack overnight.

Did Randalls ever do that ?
If that keeps up they'll shoot by Randalls and catch up
with Japanese swords. :-)
TW

Bill Ferris

unread,
Sep 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/22/97
to

Mike P. Swaim wrote:
>
> "Thomas Wilkinson" <tamr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >There are plenty of good knives out there that will never
> >reach the popularity of Randalls because it isn't 1965.
> >There are more knives available to collectors now
> >than there have ever been. It's a different ballgame.
> >TW
>
> That, right there, is probably the most interesting and thought
> provoking thing that's ever been said in all of the many Randall
> threads that this group has had over the past year.
>
> Here are some questions for you Randall collectors:
>
> 1) Do you think Randalls would have achieved their popularity without
> a series of wars and "police actions" around the globe to endear them
> to the hearts and minds of servicemen?
>
> 2) Do you think that if one of the current Randall employees were to
> branch out on his own, making *exactly* the same line, (same quality,
> same materials), and offering them for 2/3 cost of genuine Randalls
> with no wait, that they'd sell as well as genuine Randalls? If you
> argue that Randalls sell because of the inherent quality, then the
> same quality knife with a different name should sell just as well, but
> I don't think anybody would really argue that such would be the case.
>
> 3) Do you think that Randalls will keep going up in collector value?
> Or will the collector market tend to level off as the Baby Boomers age
> and the name Randall doesn't evoke as many fond memories in the next
> generations?
>
> I'm most interested in #3. Not because I want to speculate on
> Randalls, but just as insight into how you all perceive the knife
> market. Chas. mentioned Ruanas and some others, and I'd bet that there
> are plenty of folks reading this who've never heard of them.
>
> How big a part of "collectibility" is simple name recognition?
>
> BTW-- I'm totally neutral on Randall's as fuel for flame wars. I may
> or may not have a couple of them, and I may or may not desire more.
>
> MPS
Re:

1. Do you think Bowie knives would be collectible if Jim Bowie had not
died at the Alamo? Would Civil War swords be colectible without the
Civil War? What about WWI and WWII bayonets?

2. Heard of Steve Johnson?

3. Collectibles are worth what people are willing to pay. Some collect
knives and some collect beanie babies.

Bill

kj...@ucsd.edu

unread,
Sep 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/22/97
to

Sometimes I just can't help myself...

In article <6036se$h...@camel1.mindspring.com>,


mi*a...@cphl.mindspring.com wrote:
>
> "Thomas Wilkinson" <tamr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >There are plenty of good knives out there that will never
> >reach the popularity of Randalls because it isn't 1965.
> >There are more knives available to collectors now
> >than there have ever been. It's a different ballgame.
> >TW
>
> That, right there, is probably the most interesting and thought
> provoking thing that's ever been said in all of the many Randall
> threads that this group has had over the past year.
>
> Here are some questions for you Randall collectors:
>
> 1) Do you think Randalls would have achieved their popularity without
> a series of wars and "police actions" around the globe to endear them
> to the hearts and minds of servicemen?
>

Probably not. The knives and Randall's ability to promote his product
did the job. Randall's are now recognized as quality blades worldwide as
a result.


> 2) Do you think that if one of the current Randall employees were to
> branch out on his own, making *exactly* the same line, (same quality,
> same materials), and offering them for 2/3 cost of genuine Randalls
> with no wait, that they'd sell as well as genuine Randalls? If you
> argue that Randalls sell because of the inherent quality, then the
> same quality knife with a different name should sell just as well, but
> I don't think anybody would really argue that such would be the case.

Right again. Most arms and tools have an intrinsic worth and then
something extra that speaks to the user. We tool users have imbued our
tools with such feeling since "forever."

>
> 3) Do you think that Randalls will keep going up in collector value?
> Or will the collector market tend to level off as the Baby Boomers age
> and the name Randall doesn't evoke as many fond memories in the next
> generations?

The most interesting question. Given the nature and track records of
family owned business in the USA my guess is that Randall will disapear
with this generation (a large cutlery operation may pick up the name
however). Is anyone aware of any custom shop or small "manufaturer"
lasting more then two generations? I know of a knife buisness in the
same familt for nearly 300 years in Germany but that's a different. It
would be interesting to see a survey of Randall buyers as to demographics
and reasons for buying. I'm a tail end boomer and didn't serve in the
military. I own a Randall and plan to buy many more. I like the knives
and the mystique. Or maybe I'm just an ex-yuppie MBA who traded in his
BMW for Randall's (that's what my bleeding heart liberal niece would
say). BTW, I'm not enamored of Randalls exclusively. There are many
knife makers I will transfer wealth to in the future.

Ken Jay


>
> I'm most interested in #3. Not because I want to speculate on
> Randalls, but just as insight into how you all perceive the knife
> market. Chas. mentioned Ruanas and some others, and I'd bet that there
> are plenty of folks reading this who've never heard of them.
>
> How big a part of "collectibility" is simple name recognition?
>
> BTW-- I'm totally neutral on Randall's as fuel for flame wars. I may
> or may not have a couple of them, and I may or may not desire more.
>
> MPS

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

Todd D. Ellner

unread,
Sep 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/23/97
to

In article <19970921171...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,

HRLY BLADE <hrly...@aol.com> wrote:
>something is worth what u can get out of it......... one side
>i heard the ss randalls were not up to snuff........... the other side
>harley
>confussed???
>harley

Harley,

I would be confused if I could figure out what in the world you were
trying to say. Nothing against putting your personal signature on the
way you write and spell, but it would help an awful lot if you would
write the same language that the rest of us read. It would make
communication a lot easier.

Todd
--
Todd Ellner | The man who never alters his opinion is like the
tel...@cs.pdx.edu | stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the mind.
(503)557-1572 | --William Blake "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"

Thomas Wilkinson

unread,
Sep 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/23/97
to

Todd what the man is saying is;

> >something is worth what u can get out of it......... one side
> >i heard the ss randalls were not up to snuff........... the other side
> >harley
> >confussed???
> >harley
To me it seems easy enough to understand.
TW

> I would be confused if I could figure out what in the world you were
> trying to say. Nothing against putting your personal signature on the
> way you write and spell, but it would help an awful lot if you would
> write the same language that the rest of us read. It would make
> communication a lot easier.
>
> Todd
> --
> Todd Ellner | The man who never alters his opinion is like the
> tel...@cs.pdx.edu | stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the
mind.<<<now that's confusing

Steve Harvey

unread,
Sep 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/23/97
to

Todd D. Ellner wrote:
>
> In article <19970921171...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> HRLY BLADE <hrly...@aol.com> wrote:
> >something is worth what u can get out of it......... one side
> >i heard the ss randalls were not up to snuff........... the other side
> >harley
> >confussed???
> >harley
>
> Harley,

>
> I would be confused if I could figure out what in the world you were
> trying to say.

I am proud to say that I speak Harlese. What he said was that one way to
look at it is that the value of an object is what you can get somebody
to pay you for it. Another thing: the stainless steel ones are not
reputed to be of the same high quality as the carbon steel blades.

See, Harlese is fun and easy, once you get the hang of it. It is sort of
like English without the bullshit.

Harv

bob engnath

unread,
Sep 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/24/97
to

Harley uses English without the bullshit. It may read a little
strange, but try it without the English majors' eye and you'll see it
makes perfect sense.

tel...@cs.pdx.edu (Todd D. Ellner) wrote:

>In article <19970921171...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>HRLY BLADE <hrly...@aol.com> wrote:
>>something is worth what u can get out of it......... one side
>>i heard the ss randalls were not up to snuff........... the other side
>>harley
>>confussed???
>>harley

>Harley,

>I would be confused if I could figure out what in the world you were

>trying to say. Nothing against putting your personal signature on the
>way you write and spell, but it would help an awful lot if you would
>write the same language that the rest of us read. It would make
>communication a lot easier.

>Todd
>--
>Todd Ellner | The man who never alters his opinion is like the
>tel...@cs.pdx.edu | stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the mind.

pilots@planet.net Dave Sutton

unread,
Sep 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/24/97
to

> kj...@ucsd.edu writes:

> > 2) Do you think that if one of the current Randall employees were to
> > branch out on his own, making *exactly* the same line, (same quality,
> > same materials), and offering them for 2/3 cost of genuine Randalls
> > with no wait, that they'd sell as well as genuine Randalls? If you
> > argue that Randalls sell because of the inherent quality, then the
> > same quality knife with a different name should sell just as well, but
> > I don't think anybody would really argue that such would be the case.


> Right again. Most arms and tools have an intrinsic worth and then
> something extra that speaks to the user. We tool users have imbued our
> tools with such feeling since "forever."


Randall Knives.
Rolex Watches.
Porsche Sports Cars.
BMW Motorcycles.
Leica Cameras.
Colt .45 Automatic Pistols.
Winchester Pre-64 Model 70 Rifles
P-51 Mustangs.

Each is an Icon. You either want them, or you don't.

If you DO want them, then no explaination is needed.
If you DON'T, no amount of explaination will ever help you.

(I'm still working on the Mustang, although the MiG-17 comes close.. )


******************************************************************************************
David Sutton pil...@planet.net HTTP://www.planet.net/ppilots/
Red Star Aviation HTTP://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RedStarAviation.html

"Warbird Aviation: The Ultimate Motorsport" Yak-50, Fouga Magister, MiG-17
"Porsche: A Close Second" 911S, Euro-Spec 944
"Russian Ural Motorcycles: A Primitive Third" 1966 Sidecar, 1967 Solo
*******************************************************************************************

Todd D. Ellner

unread,
Sep 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/24/97
to

In article <6035r1$m...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,

Michael J Barnett <michael-san-no sp...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Both my children are girls, so I'll end up seeing these Randalls go to
>son-in-laws who won't appreciate them. One girl may be able to appreciate
>hers but the other can't even be in the kitchen when you're cutting up a
>chicken.

So give the Randalls to the girl who "may be able to appreciate". And
depending on how old she is the other one may come around in time. If
not, I know where you could send them. They'll have a good home with a
fenced yard.... :-)

todd

Mike H.

unread,
Sep 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/24/97
to

spf...@aol.com (Spfld03) wrote:

>I have been following Randall knifes on the action boards and they seem to
>go for what they are advertised for in their catalog.

Randall knives tend to hold their values, because they are a "name"
brand with a good history and constant demand.

>Are they that collectable? Or just that hard to get.

Some models, especially ones that have seen "documented" military use,
or were made during a "collectible" war, are very collectible. Most
of the other Randalls are fairly common. Other things that might make
a model collectible - limited production, owned by a famous person,
some unique feature, no longer made, got some great hype, or just
appeals to the current but ever-changing whim of collectors. However,
these are things that might make any item collectable.

>But, the question remains "are they a good knife" or just Collectable?

Yes, they are a good knife -- generally made well and very usable. I
think that they are also a good value. They are priced "fairly" for
what they are -- somehwere in between a custom and production knife
with a degree of snob appeal. Are there better knives. Yes. Are
there knives that are better "values"? Yes and no. There are less
expensive knives that will do just as good a job and therefore a
better value as a "using" knife. But, I think that there are
relatively few knives that have proven, over time, to hold their
value like a Randall.

If you want something that works very well, has the look, the name,
the history; that you would be proud to own as a showpiece or when
using it, then you really can't go wrong with a Randall. If you are
hesitant about using a $200-$300 knife (thus loosing much of its
collectible/resale value) then consider a less expensive worker.

Personally, I prefer to use my Blackjack knives, because they are
essentially a good quality Randall knock-off at about 1/3 to 1/2 the
price. However, I think that Randall knives are, in general, finished
better and a more attractive knife.

--
***************************************
*** Remove "nospam-" from
*** nospam...@tiac.net
***************************************


Joe Talmadge

unread,
Sep 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/24/97
to

Steve Harvey "@3mail.3com.com> ("steve_harvey<delete) wrote:

> Todd D. Ellner wrote:
> >
> > In article <19970921171...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> > HRLY BLADE <hrly...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >something is worth what u can get out of it......... one side
> > >i heard the ss randalls were not up to snuff........... the other side
> > >harley
> > >confussed???
> > >harley
> >
> > Harley,
> >
> > I would be confused if I could figure out what in the world you were
> > trying to say.

> I am proud to say that I speak Harlese. What he said was that one way to


> look at it is that the value of an object is what you can get somebody
> to pay you for it. Another thing: the stainless steel ones are not
> reputed to be of the same high quality as the carbon steel blades.

> See, Harlese is fun and easy, once you get the hang of it. It is sort of
> like English without the bullshit.

... and without any rules of grammer or punctuation. Luckily, I speak
Harlese also.

Hey, Harley, whose A.B.s do you use for hog hunting? A Scott line?
You really go hog hunting with nothing but a knife and some dogs, or
was the mag writer embellishing things?


Joe

Joe Talmadge

unread,
Sep 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/24/97
to

Joe Talmadge (j...@cup.hp.com) wrote:
> Steve Harvey "@3mail.3com.com> ("steve_harvey<delete) wrote:
> > Todd D. Ellner wrote:
> > > In article <19970921171...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> > > HRLY BLADE <hrly...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >something is worth what u can get out of it......... one side
> > > >i heard the ss randalls were not up to snuff........... the other side
> > > >harley
> > > >confussed???
> > > >harley
> > > I would be confused if I could figure out what in the world you were
> > > trying to say.

> > I am proud to say that I speak Harlese. What he said was that one way to
> > look at it is that the value of an object is what you can get somebody
> > to pay you for it. Another thing: the stainless steel ones are not
> > reputed to be of the same high quality as the carbon steel blades.

> > See, Harlese is fun and easy, once you get the hang of it. It is sort of
> > like English without the bullshit.

> ... and without any rules of grammer or punctuation. Luckily, I speak
> Harlese also.

I must correct myself. I have discerned several Rules of Harlese:

- Pry off your SHIFT key, lest you be tempted to type an upper-case letter
- If you can substitute a single letter for a word, do it (e.g., you = u)
- Apostrophes are anathema. Substitue a comma, or just ignore completely
- All other punctuation is optional. Never put a ? at the end of a question
- Your signature must appear not once, not three times, but exactly
twice at the end of each post
- There is no point that needs more than 15 words to be explained fully


okay can u speak hrlese now

joe
joe

Michael J Barnett

unread,
Sep 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/25/97
to

That is one hell of a list. I've hit four of eight, batting five
hundred--But I come from a Naval Aviator family and we vote for the Corsair
F4U ( but even the old man will admit the Mustang would have dusted his
tail).

pilots@planet.net Dave Sutton

unread,
Sep 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/25/97
to

> "Michael J Barnett" <micha...@nnworldnet.att.net> writes:

> That is one hell of a list. I've hit four of eight, batting five
> hundred--But I come from a Naval Aviator family and we vote for the Corsair
> F4U ( but even the old man will admit the Mustang would have dusted his
> tail).


<grin> Then you understand my point. And hey, the Corsair wouldn't be
a bad choice either. I'm a child of the Jet Age and the Cold War. So my
MiG-17F represents the same wish that a previous generation would have
had for a Me-109 or Focke Wulf 190.... (hey, somebody needs to preserve
the weapons of the other side ;-) The earlier collectors are the guys who
as kids watched the Mustangs. I watched F-4 Phantoms as a kid.....

Hey guys, how much you bet that among Mike's 4, Randall knives are included?

Like I said, ya either get it, or ya don't. Then again, they make Chevy's, Timex's,
Honda's, Mossbergs, Cessna's and Black-Jack knives for a market too. If you are satisfied
with them, god bless you. It would be cheaper for me if I were satisfied with them!
My wife would be happier too..........

Russell Kay

unread,
Sep 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/25/97
to

Steve Harvey wrote:
>See, Harlese is fun and easy, once you get the hang of >it. It is sort
of
>like English without the bullshit.

To me, it seems more like bullshit without the English. But then I deal
with words for a living. However he writes, though, Harley does make a
nice blade.

-- Russ Kay, russ...@bix.com


brian w edginton

unread,
Sep 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/26/97
to

On Wed, 24 Sep 1997 05:22:51 GMT, gr...@earthlink.net (bob engnath)
wrote:

>Harley uses English without the bullshit. It may read a little
>strange, but try it without the English majors' eye and you'll see it
>makes perfect sense.
>

Yes...I found the criticism unnecessary and offensive.
This is a global medium, after all.
To expect that everyone is going to use our own personal version of
the language is arrogance.
Harley's clear and brief style sometimes make me embarrased about my
own verbosity.
Brian

Thad Bissett

unread,
Sep 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/26/97
to

Joe Talmadge (j...@cup.hp.com) wrote:
: - Pry off your SHIFT key, lest you be tempted to type an upper-case letter

: - If you can substitute a single letter for a word, do it (e.g., you = u)
: - Apostrophes are anathema. Substitue a comma, or just ignore completely
: - All other punctuation is optional. Never put a ? at the end of a question
: - Your signature must appear not once, not three times, but exactly
: twice at the end of each post
: - There is no point that needs more than 15 words to be explained fully

ok, i thnk im not confussed anymor
i like ths post all the rule speled out right
thnks for the help

thad
thad

Steve Harvey

unread,
Sep 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/26/97
to

Joe Talmadge wrote:
>
> - There is no point that needs more than 15 words to be explained fully
>
> joe
> joe

Aha, a *serious* student of Harlese! I think you have accurately
formulized the remedial rules of Harlese, and following them could allow
the pedestrian linguist to mimic the form; but I beleive that the
foundation of Harlese is one man's genius at minimizing his per byte ISP
connection charges. Harlese is not merely a removal of ascii characters,
but individual characters acheiving more communication than anyone but
the haiku masters ever imagined they could. I consider Harlese the
artistic equivalent of cubism in painting, and Harley on a par with
Picasso.

One issue though, I was sure it was twelve words, the same number of
words in a message as cans in a case. Verbal excess, like alchoholic
excess only leads to dissolution and decay.

Harv
Harv

MikeStull

unread,
Sep 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/26/97
to

>Randall Knives.
>Rolex Watches.
>Porsche Sports Cars.
>BMW Motorcycles.
>Leica Cameras.
>Colt .45 Automatic Pistols.
>Winchester Pre-64 Model 70 Rifles
>P-51 Mustangs.
>
>Each is an Icon. You either want them, or you don't.

Mr. Sutton,

While I have enjoyed your previous posts this one confirms your excellent
taste. I am 3 for 8 and lust after the other 5.

Mike Stull

Thomas Wilkinson

unread,
Sep 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/27/97
to

Find the item that doesn't belong

> >Randall Knives.<- <- <-


> >Rolex Watches.
> >Porsche Sports Cars.
> >BMW Motorcycles.
> >Leica Cameras.
> >Colt .45 Automatic Pistols.
> >Winchester Pre-64 Model 70 Rifles
> >P-51 Mustangs.
> >
> >Each is an Icon. You either want them, or you don't.
>
> Mr. Sutton,

The Pre-64 Model 70 is real over rated junk
TW

Michael J Barnett

unread,
Sep 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/27/97
to

Pre 64 model 70's, over-rated maybe, but not junk. I just admitted to one
of my four.

Thomas Wilkinson

unread,
Sep 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/27/97
to


Michael J Barnett <micha...@nnworldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<01bccae4$966532a0$4f7b450c@fpfzqlga>...

On this you are correct. They are far from junk but the simple fact is that
since 1964 many guns have blew them away where it counts, on the rifle
range.
They have never actually shot better than any other gun. Like Randalls all
hype.
TW

Michael J Barnett

unread,
Sep 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/28/97
to

I don't apologize for my Randall. I like it, it works well, and I haven't
found anything I'd rather depend on to save my life or carry for an
extended time in the woods.. The only thing I've even considered is the
Mad Dog brand. They use O1 steel like Randall but seem to be suited for
battle and not woodcraft. Just my opinion. However the new pygmy A.TA.K
?????.

lfl...@enterprise.net

unread,
Sep 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/28/97
to

Excuse me for being poor but could folks quit posting pictures. We pay in
UK for local calls and I resent downloading pictures. If you need to
circulate a picture Web it.
Net-Tamer V 1.09.2 - Registered

john

unread,
Sep 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/28/97
to

I know very little about computers but surely there are programs that
will censor and eliminate posts of graphics from downloading
automatically just as there are programs that will chooswe only graphics
to download.

John

pilots@planet.net Dave Sutton

unread,
Sep 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/28/97
to

> biss...@wfu.edu (Thad Bissett) writes:
> Joe Talmadge (j...@cup.hp.com) wrote:

> : - Pry off your SHIFT key, lest you be tempted to type an upper-case letter
> : - If you can substitute a single letter for a word, do it (e.g., you = u)
> : - Apostrophes are anathema. Substitue a comma, or just ignore completely
> : - All other punctuation is optional.

> ok, i thnk im not confussed anymor
> i like ths post all the rule speled out right
> thnks for the help


And never use a preposition to end a sentence with....

pilots@planet.net Dave Sutton

unread,
Sep 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/28/97
to

> "Thomas Wilkinson" <tamr...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> On this you are correct. They are far from junk but the simple fact is that
> since 1964 many guns have blew them away where it counts, on the rifle
> range. They have never actually shot better than any other gun. Like Randalls all
> hype.

> TW

Like I said, there are things about 'icons' that go beyond performance.
My Steyr SSG will shoot rings around any Model 70, but the 70 delights
the eye and hand like no other. A Quartz Timex will keep better time
than my Gold Rolex GMT Master, but I'm not trading in the Rolex for
a Timex. It's a matter if esthetics, as well as function. Some bragging
rights are involved here too. Do you think there would be a 'better'
choice than a Randall in the same price range?? Doubtfull....

Like I said, you either want these things or you don't. I'm glad you
don't, as it makes it more likely that I will be able to buy what I want!
Keeps the price down too.......

Regards,

Gary Hine

unread,
Sep 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/29/97
to

Dave Sutton <nospam pil...@planet.net> horked up:

>Like I said, there are things about 'icons' that go beyond performance.
>My Steyr SSG will shoot rings around any Model 70, but the 70 delights
>the eye and hand like no other.

Oh, I don't know about that. I have a _lot_ of rifles. When meat gettin'
time rolls around, the SSG falls to hand. I simply don't have anything
else that feels better or works better for me. Pretty is as pretty does.
Or something. ;-)

Gary


mel sorg

unread,
Sep 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/29/97
to

> Here is a comparison:
>
> Pre-64 model 70 = Randall
> Steyr SSG = Microtech SOCOM
>
> One pairing is of the 'classic' best of show(s).
>
> The second pair is the 'modern' high-tech edition
> with nothing sacrificed for pure performance.
>
> Really, you 'need' at least one of each of all 4 ;-)
> (plase feel free to tell your wife I said so)
> And, actually, I use the SSG for everything from
> woodchucks to elk...but still admire the Model 70
> as a thing of beauty. I carry a SOCOM in my pocket,
> but still have the Randall taped to my parachute harness.
>
> SSG wears a Kahles ZF-69 6x scope, BTW. Interchanges with AN/PVS-4 starlight.
> Model 70 (.338) sports a Lyman Alaskan. Different generations completely.
>
> "admire the classics, but embrace technology"
>
>Must explain why I:

-make mostly buckskinner style and simple sheath knives out of tool
steel, but collect liner-locks with things like titanium liners and
CPMt440V blades.

-Love the looks, and feel, and action of a 30's Winchester Model 12
shotgun, but also shoot a Ruger double with interchagable chokes.

-have a tricked out 10/22 with thumbhole stock, heavy match barrel,
match hammer, large objective scope, etc.......but head to the woods
after game toting an old Model 70 in .30-06, with 1.5 x 5 skinny tube
Leupold.

-enjoy automatic trannys and cruise control, but still miss my good
old '56 Ford Farilane Town Sedan I drove to work for 12 years!

madpoet

pilots@planet.net Dave Sutton

unread,
Sep 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/29/97
to


Here is a comparison:

Pre-64 model 70 = Randall
Steyr SSG = Microtech SOCOM


One pairing is of the 'classic' best of show(s).

The second pair is the 'modern' high-tech edition
with nothing sacrificed for pure performance.

Really, you 'need' at least one of each of all 4 ;-)
(plase feel free to tell your wife I said so)
And, actually, I use the SSG for everything from
woodchucks to elk...but still admire the Model 70
as a thing of beauty. I carry a SOCOM in my pocket,
but still have the Randall taped to my parachute harness.

SSG wears a Kahles ZF-69 6x scope, BTW. Interchanges with AN/PVS-4 starlight.
Model 70 (.338) sports a Lyman Alaskan. Different generations completely.


"admire the classics, but embrace technology"

Bill Campbell

unread,
Sep 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/30/97
to

john wrote:
>
> I know very little about computers but surely there are programs that
> will censor and eliminate posts of graphics from downloading
> automatically just as there are programs that will chooswe only graphics
> to download.
>

That's not even the point. This is a *discussion* group, not a binaries
group. If you're interested in posting knife binaries (ie pics), start a
newsgroup such as rec.knives.binaries (be sure to follow netiquette with
starting a .rec group, you might want to go with .alt group which is
much easier to start, ie, you just create the group).

Bill

--
If planes were crashing as often as DOS and Windoze, I doubt that
anyone but suicidal maniacs would fly...run linux (or solaris-x86,
or BSD, or ...) and be done with it.

brian w edginton

unread,
Oct 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/1/97
to

On 28 Sep 1997 23:42:29 GMT, "Michael J Barnett"
<micha...@nnworldnet.att.net> wrote:

>I don't apologize for my Randall. I like it, it works well, and I haven't
>found anything I'd rather depend on to save my life or carry for an
>extended time in the woods.. The only thing I've even considered is the
>Mad Dog brand. They use O1 steel like Randall but seem to be suited for
>battle and not woodcraft. Just my opinion. However the new pygmy A.TA.K
>?????.

I love my Randall #1....but I do not use it any more.
I have many other (cheaper) knives that I prefer to use.
I seem to be using my Ontario Quartermaster more often than any of my
fixed blades....because it works as well as any and it fits my hand
better.
The Randall works ok but I find that the handle is a bit slim and does
not index as well as I would like .
Small thing. But final choices often come down to small things.
I would not, however, part with the #1.
Brian


Todd D. Ellner

unread,
Oct 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/1/97