Re: Can Openers?
Rick,
Good thought, and a definite possiblity. It brings up an amusing image of a puzzled soldier sitting in camp, a can in one hand and a newfangled can knife in the other.
I alluded to the cross-section of the can knives in my previous post -- I don't know about Art's research, but in my own experience the slices in the original cans appear to have been made by something with a much thinner cross section than the can knives I have seen. I went through my original cans last night, and this is true for the examples that are in good enough condition to have well-preserved terminal points on the cuts or single "punctures" to study. For example, in the can that I pictured, an errant cut shows the "opener" to have a very thin blade, finely tapered, and only about 3/4 wide. The can knives I have seen have heavier blades to withstand the abuse.
Again, I doubt that I have a large enough sample group to make any definitive conclusions; that is why I pointed to Art's research which I would consider superior to my own observations. In his opinion, if a durable item could not be identified as being excavated (with a firm provenance) from a CW site, photographed in period photography, or definitively documented with period records of some sort, then it should not be considered in a living history context. I'm not sure that I buy this totally, but it's the severest litmus test that I know of!
John Tobey
Rick,
Good thought, and a definite possiblity. It brings up an amusing image of a puzzled soldier sitting in camp, a can in one hand and a newfangled can knife in the other.
I alluded to the cross-section of the can knives in my previous post -- I don't know about Art's research, but in my own experience the slices in the original cans appear to have been made by something with a much thinner cross section than the can knives I have seen. I went through my original cans last night, and this is true for the examples that are in good enough condition to have well-preserved terminal points on the cuts or single "punctures" to study. For example, in the can that I pictured, an errant cut shows the "opener" to have a very thin blade, finely tapered, and only about 3/4 wide. The can knives I have seen have heavier blades to withstand the abuse.
Again, I doubt that I have a large enough sample group to make any definitive conclusions; that is why I pointed to Art's research which I would consider superior to my own observations. In his opinion, if a durable item could not be identified as being excavated (with a firm provenance) from a CW site, photographed in period photography, or definitively documented with period records of some sort, then it should not be considered in a living history context. I'm not sure that I buy this totally, but it's the severest litmus test that I know of!
John Tobey
Comment