I can understand you and Fords reasoning on the 3rd/4th question , especialy in light of the examples of the 4th pack based guard coming every time with the shouldered horizontal grained blade and predominantly gen scabbards.. I guess I was focusing on the hand worked chest feathering and perhaps Holler had to do this because the Pack guards were coming out of worn molds at this point in the game and lacked detail? Tapered tang blades being found in the totally molded 3rd is a real clincher too! In you guys experience do most of the Pack based 4th's have white plaster filled grips though? Most "late" 3rd's have that along with the horiz. grained blades.. I see this posted example of the 4th has a trolon grip. Great thread! Best, Kevin.
06-04-2015 11:13 PM
Your point on the white gripped and obviously late produced Holler 3rds is a good one. I think there is every chance that the 4th as we know it, could have been produced either alongside or more likely as a stop gap by Holler during parts and materials shortages during the long period that the 3rd was in production. That makes perfect sense to me based on the configs of both and it was an idea that was re-hashed on GDC.
The four that I have owned all had trolon grips, generic scabbards and shouldered blades, they are also found in more or less equal numbers with unmarked blades .....something that I have always found to be a little strange.
Jon the same reason you see some of the small cottage makers with Pack & WKC guards later in the period instead of purchasing the LG-A & B they also purchased from Pack & WKC to fulfill their production needs. They could purchase guards from the generic manufacture or one of the bigger firms potentially based on a number of factors like price-delivery-relationships or combinations of these factors. So same scenario in 1935 who do we source our guards from? As they had choices. You call them unattributed I call them generic so really it seems a terminology issue we could start calling the Generic A & B unattributed-A & unattributed-B
I think your point that the makers I mentioned used crossguards from larger known manufacturers in larger numbers some what reinforces my idea that these makers bought not only generic guards but guards from larger producers early & late in the period the practice repeats itself through production regardless of quantities.
I realize the sample pool is small but until we know who made these Iím comfortable with the term Early Generic Kevin suggested that one of the makers that you see these crossguards fitted on could be the producer? Thatís a great point can the same point can be made of the A & B? I think so Is it a possible a company existed that made strictly hilt fittings and scabbards for sale to the small cottage makers or any producer for that matter? Sure it is but itís also possible these were made by one of the known cottage makers or big firms but who - that is question. I do understand your point with limited numbers can they truly be called generic? Hereís the definition.
characteristic of or relating to a class or group of things; not specific
a consumer product having no brand name or registered trademark
Jon I was referring to the punched eye-breast enhancements and wreath enhancements sure looks like nice hand enhancement to me bit crude but appealing in its own way
Correction While WKC supplied allot guards (WKC Type-1) to other makers early in the period 35-36 they didnít later in period. I can only think of Klaas that used a WKC Type-2 off the top of my head. Unlike Pack as you see a fair amount of their guards on other makers through out the production run of the army officer dagger.
Here is a Horster with a Pack Type-3 This one doesnít have the punched eye but have seen more then a few that do. Interesting when you see this guard on a Horster in allot of cases they have a large amount of lacquer remaining and have a beautiful molted patina.
Heer dagger by Horster with Alu fittings
Great points on the Generics Tom. Speaking on the subject of WKC guards being used by many makers early, I have always felt that the LG-A was a WKC product used by many makers throughout the rest of production. THE only difference between the Hatchet head WKC and the LG-A is the forehead of the bird! I think this was their guard and as evidence I would offer the use of the LG-A on occasion by Eickhorn. They were known for using WKC scabbards so why not guards from the same firm? I think WKC was the only firm Eick had this relationship with. So, who made the LG-B? I would guess that Anton Wingen may have been the producer of that guard, they were a large firm that could have handled this and a firm that survived WW2 and prospered throughout the rest of the century. What do you guys think? Best, Kevin.
Great Thread gents.... @ Kevin..just my observation..It seems Eickhorn and Pack were in the center of the web in regards to sharing with other firms..and would make sense also..that WKC had this relationship with Eickhorn. The scope of shared fittings encompasses many edged types by these firms...yea I know you guys know this....but just bringing the younger readers up to speed.
The realm of the Heer dagger shows many configurations ...which no other edged type IMO has as many fitting changes as does the Heer dagger. Close study of production years will make sense to these many changes. It is almost an Art form and a sharp eye to have this gift of identifying these guard types. Reading these threads are the only way to knowing the production year changes and the Firm relationships created to help competing firms to fill their production quota.
Again just bringing the readers up to speed. Great thread Gents Regards Larry
It is not the size of a Collection in History that matters......Its the size of your Passion for it!!
- Larry C
One never knows what tree roots push to the surface of what laid buried before the tree was planted - Larry C
ďThe farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.Ē - Winston Churchill