Become our sponsor and display your banner here
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 42

Diplomat's Dagger for Review

Article about: by Larry C Then the dagger has been opened and parted...which according to Cogs analysis...the eagle IMO has been replaced..unless other Alcoso examples with this blade logo variant can be f

  1. #31

    Default

    Quality could well refer to the cheaper metals and the poorer alloys being used by necessity due to the war constraints, but it is doubtful that actual gross deformation of design details is the intended reference. Even in true late war manufacture, it would be difficult to accept that such bubbly metal and amateurish design work would have been accepted. One could almost believe that a mass produced piece like a Heer could slip through the quality control cracks under extreme late war production, but a small batch dagger for such as the Diplomatic is untenable. But in any case, 1942 is not considered late and should have been constructed with fine workmanship and materials.
    William

    "Much that once was, is lost. For none now live who remember it."

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    P
    Many
     

  3. #32

    Default

    Remember that the war in Europe had started in 1939, in addition, Germany was heavily involved in the Spanish Civil War. By 1942 production of dress daggers and dress bayonets had seized. I would think that 1942 could be considered 'late'.

  4. #33

    Default

    1944 and early 45 must be considered Apocalypse then...lol

    But that would actually make for a good discussion thread all of it's own-what would be considered "late war" and also, would all items produced be considered under the same circumstances? Myself, I have always considered 1939-1940 to be "early war" followed by 1941 to early 43 to be "mid war" and late 1943-early 1945 to be "late war".
    William

    "Much that once was, is lost. For none now live who remember it."

  5. #34

    Default

    Dress dagger production ceased in 1942.
    Quality started to fall in 1936 and was quite bad by 1942.

  6. #35
    ?

    Default

    Hello Coggy, Yes, I concur that 1942 is considered 'late' by 3rd Reich blade collectors, as there is scant evidence that standard dress daggers manufacturing continued into 1943. Although we know of special presentation, dedication and Honor examples were produced after 1942, on what appears to be individual special orders.
    In the last 'issued' batches of HJ knives dated 1942 we observe plastic hanger straps. Some HJ's found in Solingen by U.S. GI's were of even a bowie style blade with no date. Appeared unissued but very late.
    We have seen the quality of these very late production HJ blades. So we know that manufacturing did not just go crappy at the very end for even a standard HJ knife as a 'dress items'.
    So why would they fall apart on the crossguard of this Diplomatic dagger ? Unless of course there was another crossguard mold made at a later date for some unknown reason, I.E. 'Field Day Dagger' or just Veteran Souvenir needs. Why not use the accepted and known Alcoso quality Diplomatic crossguard variants at hand? Perhaps the originals were tossed away at the wars end since they has a swas on them, and only later for the immediate post war era Alcoso with numerous war-time parts still in bins but lacking crossguards needed to make a quick mold to be able to assemble a complete dagger to occupation troops. Made a few until existing other parts ran out, then that was it.

    Unless, I see others like this one I will have a hard time accepting that this crossguard was made at the same time as the other quality components of what I believe to be original parts (except as pointed out on the hanger clip).
    BTW, I don't ever say; 'I've never seen that before', as all that means is 'I' never seen one. This could be all original, however at this point I have to agree with others and Wagriff;

    >>Quality could well refer to the cheaper metals and the poorer alloys being used by necessity due to the war constraints, but it is doubtful that actual gross deformation of design details is the intended reference. Even in true late war manufacture, it would be difficult to accept that such bubbly metal and amateurish design work would have been accepted. - (edit by wagner) <<

    -wagner-

  7. #36

    Default

    Quote by Lakesidetrader View Post
    Dress dagger production ceased in 1942.
    Quality started to fall in 1936 and was quite bad by 1942.
    I never knew this...

  8. #37

    Default

    Wagner: Another point to consider is the fact that the dagger could have been denazified, and many of those were, and later repaired by silver soldering another swaz with wreath. This always leaves excess solder and requires rechasing. Matter of fact, I have done that myself on army, RLB and teno daggers.

  9. #38

    Default

    True that, Cog...but it's more likely that the entire crossguard was replaced, in view of it's bubbly metal above the wings and the horrendous eagle details. If such a thing happened, I'm thinking that someone cast one from using the old de-nazified crossguard to form the main part of the casting mold and hand carved in the rest to include the missing bit. Unfortunately, the hand carving job was done by, apparently, a drunken grade schooler in shop class. None of the other metal parts exhibit any of this crude metal, so this is looking rather likely. So, unfortunately, this would leave us with a once original and quite costly dagger that was mutilated and extremely poorly "repaired". Where then would this piece be classified? Original with repro repair work? Or would this be, for all sakes and purposes, considered a parts dagger with a non-original crossguard? And what kind of value would be placed on it-if this was the case?
    William

    "Much that once was, is lost. For none now live who remember it."

  10. #39
    ?

    Default

    Coggy, That's a good point. Yes, many were denazified, and this one may indeed have been silver soldered and rechased. The legs and talons features on the eagle could well support that.

    Now for a couple of photos.
    Both are Alcoso's. One on top left is a standard Diplomat Alcoso logo example. Bottom right is the accepted 'no maker' marked Alcoso G.O. with the thick wreath variant crossguard.




    a closer crossguard comparison between the two.
    Both these examples have high quality fished crossguards. However, on late Government Officials I have seen crossguards that do not have fine finish and have closer to a 'out of cast' look as Paul mentions. Never seen a Diplomat like that. Certainly have not seen a 'deformed at birth' monster legged Diplo crossguard eagles - until today.
    This one might need a hand inspection. However I don't think a 'in-hand' will make that eagle look any better.



    Like with everything else it's -JMO.

    -wagner-

  11. #40

    Default

    I'd very much like to have a peep at the reverse side of the eagle and see if there is any sign of a casting or soldering seam being hidden by the blade. That would be fairly decisive for one way or another. If it's been soldered or recast, it would appear that the entire wreath had been removed to do the de-Nazifying.
    William

    "Much that once was, is lost. For none now live who remember it."

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. RZM Marked SS Dagger For Review.

    In SS Dienstdolch, 1933 & 1936
    08-28-2013, 04:17 PM
  2. SA dagger for review

    In SA Dienstdolch
    01-10-2013, 10:23 AM
  3. SS EM dagger for review

    In SS Dienstdolch, 1933 & 1936
    10-10-2012, 08:45 AM
  4. SS dagger by EP & S for review...

    In SS Dienstdolch, 1933 & 1936
    02-26-2012, 11:04 PM
  5. Diplomat Dagger offered as the real deal, Opinions please

    In Daggers and Swords of the Third Reich
    04-16-2011, 08:55 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •