Diplomat's Dagger for Review

**big ned** · 10-08-2013, 01:17 AM

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 found with Horrid eagles feet.
Is there any other photos.and or GO/ Diplo knowldege available that would support the authenticity of GIZMO8Z Diplomat dagger?
Thanx for chiming in Cogwheel..this opens the door for a greater discussion

Although a Government dagger rather than a Diplomatic one, this was deemed good on WAF 5 years ago. The MM is for late produced daggers dating 1940-42.

**Espenlaub Militaria** · 10-08-2013 01:17 AM

We also buy and trade your items and full collections!

**Larry C** · 10-08-2013, 01:38 AM

Thanks Ned for the photo..but with Govt daggers and Diplo daggers it would be like comparing SA and SS daggers in the same. There still are subtle differences..but I do see the logo for what it is and appears to be the same difference in distance to the crossguard as the Diplo.
Someone had that apart also,,,or tried too and scratched the surface..the spanner nut has a slight swirl to it.

**Wagriff** · 10-08-2013, 01:42 AM

Interesting. A post-war assembled parts dagger with a poorly made crossguard to put with it?

**GIZMO8Z** · 10-08-2013, 02:04 AM

I'm in over my head... So confused!

**wagner** · 10-08-2013, 05:28 PM

by Wagriff

Interesting. A post-war assembled parts dagger with a poorly made crossguard to put with it?

>>with a poorly made crossguard to put with it?<< BINGO !
I want to thanks Gizmo on posting these additional photos particularly of the crossguard which was my initial area of concern.
First off, specialists in G.O. and Diplomatic daggers have suggested that the Diplomatic version by Alcoso was better quality made in fit and finish than the G.O. version. To find a diplomatic version in construction which is inferior to a G.O. brings one to closer examine the areas of concern.
For me that area is the crossguard. The eagles feet look horrendously out of proportion to the body and seem to be made as an afterthought by a un-artistic person with talons that look just plain horrible. Then if we look closer to the wings we see pockmarks like airpockets throughout the wings and as mentioned earlier, 'holes' in the flat area above the eagles head. The wreath details are lacking, and show various uneven detail and lacking at all at some in another part.

The rest of the dagger shows to me to be a very late version. The quality is the poorest that I have seen, however I can't dismiss the dagger as a whole as being a fake. I don't think it is. However being a 'parts dagger' is where I'm leaning now, especially since I've enlarged the crossguard eagle. I can't believe that even a very late version would allow a non standard crossguard out the Alcoso factory door to be delivered to a Diplomatic level official. Crossguard looks like is came from a sand casting and shows much inferiority compared to the rest of the dagger parts.

So the question is if the above is correct; Does it look like the left over parts when assembled were lacking a crossguard and a new one was made for some G.I postwar ? OR ???? ....
Great discussion here.

-wagner-

**plumbob** · 10-08-2013, 07:21 PM

I am not going to pretend I know much about these at all.
But a thought crossed my mind with regards to the cross guard .
Could this have been a denazified dagger which someone has used the original cross guard for a mould to make a cross guard with a wreath to up the value, might explain the shady looking legs and feet. Hope this makes sense.
I might be way off.
Rod

**Lakesidetrader** · 10-08-2013, 10:08 PM

I have no dog in this fight so I will say a couple things for your consideration.
1-The Alcoso sideways maker mark is the late version. I have NO problem at all with the blade or maker mark.
2-The scabbard is quite correct to include the bands, I've seen these bands up and down I'm sure they were just slip fit and soldered.
3-The blame for MOST Poor fits on these type daggers should go right to the guy in the mirror. Everyone anymore insists that you disassemble these things to authenticate them. 99% of the disassemblers do not have the right tools or even know what they are looking at. Besides not all these daggers have matching assembly numbers coming out of the factory. Finally reassembling these things is not as easy as it looks. Just like the first time with a few things it's awkward and uncomfortable. Be honest, most collectors do not handle many of these.
4-The final finishing on this stuff was all hand work. If you saw what castings looked like when they came out of a mould you would be mortified. These things were hand polished and all those lines were hand chased. That is why they can vary in appearance. And Yes, there were Monday mornings in the 3rd Reich after a long weekend too when everything did not go exactly right. These guys were not gods they were humans.
5-I worked as a toolroom foreman in a Die casting shop for years. I can tell you that dies change. They are not static, they get dirty, they break, they are repaired and some days you just do what you need to do to get the die back into production especially in 1942 when everyone and their uncle was being drafted. Look at 10 Alcoso crossguards and you will see some variations for just these reasons.
Is this one real?
I don't know but I think it has a chance. We need to be careful not to condemn something so fast.

**Wagriff** · 10-09-2013, 12:08 AM

True that, Paul...but have you Ever seen such feet on the eagle for such a meticulous dagger? I just cannot believe that this crossguard came out of the Alcoso lines and was sent on to a Diplomatic officer. Seriously, I think the man could have gotten laughed at for such a mess...1942 was mid-war production- the Germans were not quite at their military Peak yet....the quality controls certainly would not have been That non-existent at that point in time. Late 1944-early 45? Absolutely. But this eagle looks like it was being handed out the back door as the Red Army was kicking in the front.

**Larry C** · 10-09-2013, 04:26 AM

Some Great replies here and great points of interest from all that replied.......My challenge to the Diplomat dagger community.... as I can not seem to find any more documented proof as what I have already studied and what has already been photographically posted....is for some of the advanced collectors reading this who collect this type of dagger..show us your Alcoso Diplomat daggers with these mangled feet if they reside in your collection. I invite all replys with ( included photos ) concerning this particular anomaly..so as to continue this discussion with balance and fairness. Some great responses have been made so far and looking forward to more.
Please for the community here...NO Google photos ..this proves nothing. I dont want to see this thread end up like a "Monday"..which would be lack of responses..but would like to see it to fruition and end on a Friday..with more documentation. Regards Larry

**cogwheel** · 10-09-2013, 07:10 AM

In many of his sales catalogs Tom Wittmann frequently commented on the quality issue of the Alcoso GO/Diplo crossguards. On several occasions he remarked that Alcoso was rather 'lax' in updating their casting dies, particularly the later ones.