Questions for Danny and Ger on their new army book.

**Tomaz** · 05-14-2016, 12:42 PM

First I would like to say that I love the book and is a great reference source which I will be going back to time and time again and would recommend it to anyone interested in collecting army daggers.

My first question : Dagger number 5 (page 38) Alcoso type 3 with script writing maker mark, should this not be placed as number 7 just before the type 4 with sideways script writing maker mark and dated later than 36-40, perhaps only 40 as I believe this maker mark was only used for a short period of time before the sideways script writing one.

Dagger number 41 (page 110) Holler type 4 looks like a Holler type 2. It also has the earlier 17 stroke maker mark. The previous one shown, Holler type 3 has the 11 stroke maker mark so would they go from 17 stroke (type 2) to 11 stroke (type 3) then back to 17 stroke (type 4). This type 4 looks like a type 2 just without the hand chiselling. If this is another guard maybe the type 3 and 4 should have been switched around.

I have more questions but hopefully you can answer these two for now. Thanks for any replies and maybe others can chime in with their questions if they have any.

Best Tomaz.

**Espenlaub Militaria** · 05-14-2016 12:42 PM

We also buy and trade your items and full collections!

**Larry C** · 05-14-2016, 03:10 PM

I have not received the book yet ...and now hearing the end of a story in a movie.

Just joking ..but I'm sure Gerrit will have an excellent explanation how the text was portrayed.

Regards Larry

**dr73** · 05-14-2016, 06:24 PM

Hi Tomaz, first of all I want to thank you for your positive comment about our book. You are right about the Alcoso trademark. We checked and double checked everything and spent countless hours before it went to the printing office but when we found this one, it was already too late and we couldn't change it anymore. Too bad but not a big deal.
The Höller is in fact a type 4. I agree it looks like a type 2 but when you look closely at the details you can see the differences. You are right about the earlier trademark. We noticed that too. Since the last crossguard type was used we decided we couldn't put it before the type 3 crossguard. Also the scabbard of this dagger is a late generic type. We know from many period pieces that trademarks were not always used consequently so we didn't have any problems with this dagger.

Regards
Danny

**Larry C** · 05-15-2016, 12:48 AM

Thankyou Tomaz for pointing out those observations ..which will prove constructive.

Perhaps any corrections in the reference could be noted here on this thread so that those now and future book owners could make necessary penned in changes in their own book.

For future readers that also may have observations let's not grind axes which so many find it easy to destroy than build up..as this reference was a great undertaking....let's report history if there are any flaws ..so that it can be corrected for the next generation of collectors .

You know me to admit I'm wrong ...but there is a difference between being wrong and oversight. Too much was going on behind the scenes of this reference putting it together and it is alot larger than what anyone thinks.

I would say if it's that easy to tear down ones work..then it must be easy for the wrecking ball itself to write its own reference. When was the last time anyone seen a wrecking ball build a house or set a foundation.

Let's put history together and finaluze any missing details ...the house is built and the door is open to the craftsmen who can finish history's details.

Regards Larry

**Rossi** · 05-15-2016, 06:05 PM

Looking forward to my copy! 👍

**Tomaz** · 05-16-2016, 10:51 AM

Thanks for the replies guys,
I agree Larry, only constructive questions should be asked here to advance our knowledge on these daggers.

We will have to agree to disagree on the Holler type 4 Danny, even with the generic scabbard I would still have put it as a type 3, it has the older looking design to the guard and the earlier maker mark.

The generic cross guard type B is seen and described correctly as the generic type B on a number of daggers but on the Herders numbers 34 and 35 (page 96 and 98) and the Wingen number 97 (page 222) it is describes as their own guards. Maybe I am missing something but they appear to also be generic B guards, if so how have they been attributed to being Herders and Wingens own guards.

The Paul Weyersbergs shown look completely different guards so why are there not more numbered types, at least 4. Why 2A and not 3 and why 2B and not 4, aren't different designed guards a new type like the way for example the Eickhorns have been numbered.

Best Tomaz.

**Larry C** · 05-17-2016, 12:32 AM

Received my copy today and an outstanding presentation of Daggers and Research.

The Heer subject has to be one of the most difficult to follow and understand in dagger collecting..and This newly released reference broke through many barriers never before achieved. These are many steps forward more so than what anyone would of thought of or were afraid to do on their own.

@ Tomaz ...the numbering sequence is not relevant how these daggers were portrayed. You must Question then Ralf Siegert and his work how he simplified the Chained SS dagger production time line. Which many SS collectors revel in.

Before this thread runs away with fault finding..as my warning posted above may lead to be short lived...I would encourage anyones advanced knowledge to take it one step further and Author an advanced version. Please also update Wittmanns , Siegerts , Weinands, Saris ...etc.... and all those who poured their heart into bringing forth what was never available during the Third Reich until present.
I also applaud all those WHO DID CONTRIBUTE to those authors including this Newly presented Heer reference.

No Reference is flawless ...not even by the most prestigious of Advanced collectors Or High End dealers who choose to devote their time and a TON OF THEIR OWN MONEY to bring to those who had a smaller collection..or none at all.
New information surfaces over the years and any current author should not be held by public account on what has not yet surfaced in new information. Where one author finishes..another one will start and continue to build on that subject.

I want those who have acquired this or any other edged type reference to decide for themselves if these books will be useful in their library or not. This thread will not be a stage to tear down ones work.

I see a very great ground breaking achievement which continue to fill in the missing pieces of this time periods puzzle.

Regards Larry

**Tomaz** · 05-17-2016, 02:33 PM

The point of the thread was not to tear anything down but simply to clarify the queries I have and those of anyone else. Not that I expected anyone else to have an opinion though.
No one can be expected to just accept information that in their eyes does not seem to be correct and I see no harm in asking a few questions to understand how the new information can make sense.
The thread could have been useful but now with you (Larry) making a big song and dance about it it is pointless carrying it on. We will now just sit and wonder how this or that in the book makes sense.

Just to let you know Larry I am currently in the process of writing my own navy book and if in the future anyone has any questions on what I have written I would have no problem answering them.

And I did contribute to Danny and Gers book.

Tomaz.

**Larry C** · 05-17-2016, 05:17 PM

Happy for you ( Tomaz )...post it when you produce it ( Tomaz )...we wish you the best
The members here would love to help you out pointing out any oversights you may have.

Are we clear (( Tomaz?.)).... Good hunting

Best Larry

**Larry C** · 05-17-2016, 05:36 PM

By the way ( Tomaz ) ...could you tell the forum what dagger contribution you made towards this book. We would love to see what type dagger you have.

Also including any text related to the heer topic and this reference. Please don't be shy.