Army Dagger WKC

[Degens]

I think there might be some confusion between posts in this thread. I totally agree that the B&A blade is post war. The company itself was a firearm manufacturer from 1900-1945 in Zella Mehlis, Thuringe, miles away from Solingen and yet Solingen is the marking found on both the SA dagger and 2nd Luft blades.
That alone strongly suggests that when the company was seized in 1945 and production of firearms ceased, the firm switched to all means possible to survive, and that included keepsakes or post war daggers for returning troops. The fact that "Germany" is etched onto all of their dagger blades confirms they are post war.
Here is the company history from 1900>

BOLTE & ANSCHUTZ
Mehlis and Zella Mehlis, Thuringe (Germany)
1900: manufacturer of weapons and retailer. Property of Fritz Reuss.
1914: manufacturer of firearms and other objects. Production of revolvers, pistols, rifles of small caliber as well as range of hardware.
1920: merchant of weapons and hardware. Property of Fritz Reuss and A.Spiess.
1925: manufacturer of revolvers, Flobert rifles, pistols, automatic pistols.
The mark B & A in a cross are found on a variety of firearms and accessories, including reducing tubes for the Luger pistol (patent DRGM n° 1,364,272 of 1936) and on the rifles B. u A. of the years 1930.
1930-1939: manufacturer of weapons.
End of the activities in 1945.

The WKC dagger was NOT assembled by B&A using those parts. Somebody a lot later, for reasons unknown added a postwar B&A blade to an original WKC dagger. Hope that makes sense.

[PeterCollector]

Now I´m a lot of smarter than before Jon, thanks a lot for this lesson!

Regards Peter

[Rancid66]

And how do we know that someone has replaced the blade?
The dagger is almost in mint condition, so the blade had to be on same theory, in mint condition.
So why would someone change the mint blade, and put B&A?
(We went in a circle.)

Regards
Vedran

[Degens]

" And how do we know that someone has replaced the blade? "

Let me put it this way, the WKC dagger has a WKC pommel, WKC crossguard, WKC ferrule, WKC scabbard and a B&A blade.

Which part would you hazard a guess has been changed?.

[Rancid66]

So you dont have any proof?

Regards
Vedran

[Degens]

Comical

I don't have any proof for what exactly?. That WKC used post war blades not manufactured until 1945 on 1937/8 daggers or that B&A managed to secure a pommel, ferrule, cross-guard and scabbard from WKC after 1945 to use on this dagger only?.

I give up !

[Rancid66]

You claim that the blade in these dagger is replaced.
What are your evidence for these claim?

My argument - for replacement blade on the Herr dagger, it is necessary to disassemble the same dagger.
At first disassembly of the dagger, in many times on the pommel creating, or just stripping some patina.
But on this pommel patina is preserved, and there there is no trace of opening.
- The dagger is almost in mint condition, so the blade had to be on same theory, in mint condition.
So why would someone change the mint blade, and put B&A?
- B&A are buying all possibly parts of daggers.
So there it is possible - they are made the "correct" the dagger.

In the end, B&A used all parts Heer dagger produced in the late period - just like in these one.

Regards
Vedran

[youthcollector1]

Rancid, you keep asking for proof, well where is your "proof" for your argument? I truly don't understand why you can't seem to comprehend what Degens is trying to convey to you.....it's all quite simple. You have a dagger produced ca. 37/38 with all parts being of the same maker, WKC, except one...the blade. Common sense suggest something is wrong and odds are it's the one thing that doesn't match!! The fact that all the parts are in mint condition has no bearing in this situation as many items are found in such a condition. Whoever put this together simply chose to use all mint pieces. As for the "why" which you've asked several times, who knows, maybe the WKC blade snapped in-half and the owner used the first mint blade he could find, possible a early collector. Really there are many of reason "why" which make logical sense. Sadly though, your theory just isn't one IMO.
I say that because the B&A blades were produced post-war. This we are sure of considering vet stories(I personally have been told this via a vet), but most of all, the fact that Germany is written on it(the practice of writing Germany on goods didn't start until after the war). So if said blades weren't made until after the war, that means the blade must have came together with the rest of the parts after the war!!!
I hope now you understand. If not, let's just agree to disagree.

[Rancid66]

My arguments are in posts #37.
If you have any paperwork from the manufacturer, which proves otherwise...

Regards
Vedran

[youthcollector1]

My arguments are in posts #37.

Regards
Vedran

So what you'd have use believe is B&A purchased surplus parts after the war, and somehow managed to find ALL matching WKC parts, ca. 37/38 and only these, putting them together for the first time with only using their post-war blade? Do I have that right?
A bit far fetch and IMO Degens theory is much more logical.
Though I've already answered your questions in post 37, I will reiterate it for you; the condition is irrelevant, mint pieces are found all the time, even today, therefore it's not only possible to have a put together with all mint parts, but likely. The patina is irrelevant too, the "build" could've easily occurred in the late 50's or 60's and display the same patina as a period item. You've yet to provided any proof for your stance and considering it's not logical, and your mindset obviously isn't going to change, I think it's best we agree to disagree and carry on. Happy Hunting Sir!!