Tom Kendall Military Antiques - Army Crossguard Reference
Been working on my crossguard reference page here is a link to the page. Tom Kendall Military Antiques-Army Crossguard Reference Of particular interest to army collectors will be these Entryís
1) Early Generic (EG) & Late Generic (LG)
2) Eickhorn Aluminum Type-1
3) Voos High Lift Ė Newly discovered Type
4) WKC Type 1.5 Ė Newly discovered Type
5) No mention of the Wingen Type-2 & Herder Type-1 as I believe these to be a LG-B (B Generic)
The format is as follows
Line-1-Name of producer/MFG.
Line-2-Pictures of crossguards
Line-3-In house produced guards
Line-4-Other crossguards used by manufacturer in some cases with specific hand enhancement techniques attributable to listed producer.
Of course these are my observations & opinions and I look forward some feedback and discussion on this topic
05-10-2015 06:21 PM
Tom, I would agree on the Wingen and Herder being simply type "B" with their finish of choice.. always wondered why they ended up being listed as individual guards to those makers? I like your theory on the early generic guard users going on to use later "A and B" types.. makes sense to me as quite a few of these small volume makers were users of early generic fittings, while others known for using generic guards like Anton Wingen tried their own guard only very briefly, strange! I have pondered the Holler 4th also, seems strange that they seem to have a good bit of hand work on them.. unlikely for the latest guard? I would propose that the Holler 4th may indeed be the 3rd type used then they went to the totally unenhanced guard that is presently known as the 3rd type.
Shame we cant find some documentation or factory pics that would clue us in to which makers may have been the producers of some of these generic guards.. early or late, I feel that one of the users of each of these must have been the original producer of that type of guard.
I feel confident that new and interesting variations will continue to surface and baffle us (especially on early pieces), challenging the "accepted" norms... that's what I like about these Heers! Best, Kevin.
The Holler 4th in many cases comes matched with a Generic style scabbard, the 3rd pattern nearly always has a distinct Holler scabbard. On that basis, if these two are wrong in their production order, my understanding of Generic fittings needs a rethink. Plus the fact I have also owned Holler 3rds with tapered tang blades. To say the Holler 4th is not a good variation is like saying the Weyersburg 2nd is not unique also, they are both obvious Pack 3rd variations, altered by Holler and Weyersburg to make them look........well, less like Pack production.
Horster punched eye Packs more prolific than Holler punched eyes?, I cannot even remember the last Horster Pack 3rd?.
On the Generic subject, to me a Generic dagger is one that uses parts determined by the standardisation changes and material / manpower savings in 1936, over 20+ manufacturers adopted this standardisation with the introduction of the Generic type A alone. To categorise early 1935 daggers as Generic, when the fittings are observed on maybe 2 or 3 different makers is confusing. If you think about it, nearly all unique cross-guards produced in 1935, featured on daggers by other makers, with the exception maybe of Eickhorn and Alcoso.
I do not mean to step on anybody's toes, it is of course just my opinion, and who is to say how we should categorise our own collections, certainly not me. Just throwing my towel in the ring to see if we can wake everybody up .
Also the Generic B /Herder/Wingen....You could be right, however after studying countless examples, I do still think Wittmann was onto something regarding the dip on the eagles forehead on the Herder. My personal belief is that the Generic B was taken/chosen from a Wingen design for it's simplicity and ease of production. The reason for this is the very limited number of initial Wingen 1st cross-guards, there appears to be nothing mid-period from them at all, until they suddenly reappear with the Generic B as we know it, even though some of the obvious earlier Wingens featuring this cross-guard are always heavily silver plated.
The joy's of army dagger collecting!
I managed to find the old Ford Crews post on GDC regarding the Hollers from 2008, which still makes interesting reading. Be warned unless you know your army daggers you are more likely to come out of the end of it, more confused than when your started . There was also a bigger more in depth thread which I am unable to find.
Early Undocumented Holler Army Crossguard - GermanDaggers.com
Jon glad to see you back. I figured this post would bring you back into action. Good points on the chronology of the Holler Type-3 & Type-4 that makes sense to me based on the details you outlined. My statement on the Holler Type-4 (beginning to believe) is based on my observations that I havenít seen very many and was beginning to question the guard as a Holler specific enhancement variation based on seeing a similar if not the same guard on multiple Horster examples. As a side note no one is disputing the guard under discussion is an enhanced Pack Type-3 I think that goes without mentioning. I would be curious on your thoughts on why the punched eye on the Type-4 is a Holler specific enhancement? Seems to be a much different technique then the eye on the Type-2. We all agree the crescent tool mark to the head is Holler specific but that doesnít apply here. I often questioned the punched eye detail but after rereading Fords post I see a similar detail on his Holler enhanced WKC Type-1 so perhaps I need to rethink that position but I also wondered why the Horsters I have seen from my recollection (I have no images) have the same punched eye and similar if not the same hand work as the Holler Type-4 I never felt the need to photograph these Horster examples (until now) at the shows but after seeing numerous examples I believe they are a variation Horster used. I need to compare the Holler against the Horster as I am curious if the hand work mirrors each other and are indeed the same. So anyone who has one of these variations please post so we can compare them. Yes in my personal experience I have seen more Horster with the Pack Type-3 punched eye guard then the Holler so what does that mean? To me simply itís a legitimate variation that Horster used. What I am most curious about if the guards display the same enhancement techniques or unique enhancements attributable to each MFG.
I guess we do have different ideas of what generic means to me it is a term for a crossguard that can not be attributed to any certain manufacturer and used by in most cases (but not all) blade makers who did not produce their own fittings in house. I donít follow the comment that in 1936 20 plus makers went to the Generic A due to standardization. They went to the generic A/B because they still didnít make their own fittings in house and needed to purchase crossguards. The big manufactures (Eickhorn-Alcoso-Holler-Horster-Pack-WKC) still made in house unique crossguards to the end of the period or close so I donít follow the standardization theory. I do agree with the introduction of the A/B these guards needed little to no hand finishing thus increasing production and profits. Cross reference the makers who used the generic A/B crossguards later in the period against their early production examples and see what crossguard they used many used the early generic (unattributed) so for me thatís the parallel. Puma-Voos-Tiger-WMW as examples. The other producers you see these Early generic crossguards on IMO didnít make their own fittings either like Plumacher-Axt-Wusthof Obviously Pack and WKC filled a void early in the period as well selling their in house made guards to other manufacturers.
The Generic B/Herder/Wingen debate I think we can agree on one thing if I was looking for a Herder or Wingen I would love to have it in the later nickel plate.
So itís Ok we have different opinions/theoryís I still find it a fascinating study and still looking for the next new crossguard variation. Glad your back and you certainly woke me up.
Kevin that is a bit perplexing the Holler Type-4 has that extensive hand work Jonís points are good regarding the production time frame but like you I wonder why would Holler go from a beautiful guard (Type-3) that needed no extra hand enhancement to one that needed that much detail work perhaps due to the shortages and demands of the War. Honestly I donít even have a reference pic of one to know they usually have a generic scabbard as Jon pointed out having said that so do allot of the Type-3 fitted daggers. I find your theory intriguing that one of the users of the generic guards could be the MFG things that make you go Hmm.
Thank you Gents for your thought about these crossguards and how to catalogue them.
Different views and different opinion, stuff to think about.
"I donít follow the comment that in 1936 20 plus makers went to the Generic A due to standardization. They went to the generic A/B because they still didnít make their own fittings in house and needed to purchase crossguards."
And there lies my question. If EG-1 - EG4 are Generic 1935 cross-guards, why are we not seeing all of these cottage makers making use of them in 1935, as they do not more than 24 months later with the Generic A/B.
You can virtually count on two hands the number of these unknown cross-guards that have surfaced on each of the cottage makers you mention (Puma-Voos-Tiger-WMW) and all used various cross-guards from known manufacturers in much larger numbers. Not something you see once the Generic type A & B are released.
If it was not for the fact that we know the E-Pack company produced the Pack 1st, that crossguard could easily be categorised as Generic, as it was used by virtually every maker you can think of ( large companies excluded ), in far greater numbers, including (Voos-Tiger-WMW). The only difference being, we know Pack produced it.
The fact that the EG1-EG4 observed so far, on a relatively small number of examples, coincides with them using Generic later in the period is not suprising in my opinion, as you rightly say, they did not produce their own fittings and obtained them from wherever they could including a variety of sources from known manufacturers and designs. Pack, Horster, WKC and Klass all spring to mind.
I am still on the fence regarding these four cross-guards, until more examples come to light. We know several designs already that were only used for a very limited time before being changed for something easier to produce, whether this was casting issues, man-power limitations or simply for how it looked. All four also have uncanny similarities to other known cross-guards which also opens the door to debate on enhancement.
Great subject though, it even prompted me to login even after several bottles of the devils nectar, so apologies if I sounded curt in my initial response, it was not meant to be.
Last edited by Degens; 06-04-2015 at 06:34 PM.