Not a believer myself, I think that there are still some out there who say they know that they are "real" for one reason or another. So I would be very interested in seeing what their argument(s) for the existence of a 1st model might be as it regards the period documentation/facts that Wim posted?? Best Regards, Fred
Im interested now what the Heer Gents have in opinion..on the Klaas blade with the hole in it. I am not sure of the process in blade manufacturing with Heer daggers and associated blades...but yet..when a hole in the tang is seen with any SA or SS dagger..its best to walk away.
Thoughts gents on the hole in the Tang??.... Thankyou N55 for the awesome photos that is making this thread a useful resource..and everyones input who have replied
It is not the size of a Collection in History that matters......Its the size of your Passion for it!!
One never knows what tree roots push to the surface of what laid buried before the tree was planted - Larry C
“The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” - Winston Churchill
The hole in the tang was to facilitate dipping the blade in the plating tank. Klaas was one of the few firms that plated their blades.
So, if there isn't a difference between the ordinary Heer dagger, and these Klaas examples with black grips, why do the latter have not only longer grips, but longer overall blades as well? And the reason the other 35 makers of the Army dagger, have comparable length blades?
Absent any additional period documentation/facts other than that which has already been presented - the simplest explanation might just be a manufacturer’s variation. With as far as I know their detailed manufacture governed by neither an organization like the RZM or the Heereswaffenamt (German Army), or a published set of period standards. With some cases in point from the RZM side: A published set of standards for the HJ knives that not only changed as time went on, but with the work of the different makers having differences and changes as well. Likewise with the political daggers having differences from the early ones to the later ones, and the steel alloys for the blades (judged from postwar tests) literally all over the place as compared to supposed standards. With manufacturing differences also seen on the German Army inspected side which can be tracked because they are dated.
With that said, the rather lengthy grip color discussion on GDC years ago did provide some verifiable information. Which was augmented by other research from German sources on some makers and standards for German Army (and some civilian) items, that itself was further clarified by a postwar U.S. (technical intelligence) report gathered from German sources after the war. With the bottom line being that the grip materials were time sensitive due to restrictions caused by shortages of resources / materials / labor. Which only got worse as time went on and various different substitutes were used to try and solve the problem.
PS: Which is not to say that TR collecting has not had its share of dealers/collectors who were prone to inventing theories to explain items they did not understand: Like the closely related “Luftwaffe Funeral Daggers”, the “Gold” General Officer’s dagger (also the alternate “special order” deep orange colored grips) etc. Best Regards, Fred
JR made some good valued points, And I am sure we can debate until the cows come home, we do need some hard facts like a photo and documentation to put this to rest.. I have heard of vet stores, where these pieces were obtained right from the officer, but then again I know them as stories.
Question has anyone seen photo of an Wehrmacht solider wearing a black grip heer dagger? I have not .................
I my self do believe they do exist as railway daggers....So please don't nail me to the crossAs stated before the Third Reich made edged weapons for every department...but did they start in 1935 or 1938. We know for sure the so called second model was in 38.
That being said there are good valid points made on both sides of the fence.
Regards
Mario
For railway it was not earlier than 1941; for Bahnschutz it was in about 1938.
Before then there were no daggers for the both!
When there were they surely would have been mentioned in either their
regulations.....or in uniform-magazines. Would like to see documents or
regulations before the mentioned years. The only thing mentioned in 1933
regulations for Bahnschutz is a bayonet with Troddel or Portepee.
Last edited by Wilhelm Saris; 09-09-2015 at 05:47 PM.
Klaas is known for its white painted grips, either on trolon or wood.
The trolon type unfortunite are black underneath the white paint, paint that chips of easily after all these years, because its brittle......and....Voila!!
a new dagger is born, lets call it a Railway dagger, thats the department that hasnt got one yet...lets make it expensive too...
But...he...thats just my 2 cents, happy collecting Folks...
Ger
Yes that is true about Klass,.....But the grip will usually be a dull finish when all the paint is off...Yes we can polish but that is a give away, I have inspected my grip with PC microscope and cannot find any traces of paint. Another scenario where these black grips were painted white to use up inventory to make into heer? I just really cannot see why they would have made black grips then turn around and paint them white.
Cheers
Mario
Good point there Mario! I thought the same thing. Why would you make a black grip? Why do we only find a black grip on Eickhorn and Klaas armies while all the other makers didn't use it. Shortage of materials isn't a very valid explanation because it still doesn't explain why only Klaas and Eickhorn did this. Also even later examples of Eickhorn (with the over the shoulder trademark) are found with normal grips. It just doesn't make sense to make a grip with a color that is the opposite of the standard. As almost every collector agrees that all army grips once were white.
Interesting thread!!
Cheers
Danny
Similar Threads
Posting Permissions
.
Bookmarks