08-17-2016 04:48 PM
I cannot see anything wrong with it,nice one.
Its not good, the pommel is Eickhorn, grip segments look too bulbous for original white one, cross guard is generic, looks like Eickhorn scabbard and the maker mark is not one I have seen and should have Solingen written underneath, blade could be post war but not sure.
I agree with Tomaz. The dagger looks to be an Eickhorn product. To define of the crossguard we need a better pictures of it. The blade is a repro in my opinion.
thank yo for help, I was searching more in internet but I did not find similar one wiht the same markings. I will avoid this one and will wait for another attempt.
The Logo caught my eye as appearing too big and commercial looking. The stamping is not early period.
@ Harry .....study some of the threads on this forum and the rest of the website. An ascending post count should be the last of your worries..... focus on topic content
Thankyou Tomaz and Oleg for chiming in ....... or Mike would of walked away with not so good information.
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
“The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” - Winston Churchill
Interesting fake piece. They have used some real parts like the scabbard and pommel (both Eickhorn). I agree with the others that the blade and grip are post war. The portepee is a repro too.
First and most obvious red flag is the maker's mark. Aside from the other obvious bits, the portapee is oddly 2-toned in color and the leather disc looks brand new. The lock mechanism is also nearly unused from it's appearance. A sneaky put-together of some original and some repro parts. Nothing that I would want or purchase for my collection.
"Much that once was, is lost. For none now live who remember it."
Well at least someone took the time to properly tie the knot!