Kriegsmarine Parts dagger vs. Period parts change - Not always text book

[Tomaz]

Because the navy had been officially carrying daggers for 85 years when the third reich came in and with different designs for imperial, provisional reichsmarine, reichsmarine and kriegsmarine it can lead to a mixture of parts making up a navy dagger.
They could be constantly updated, imperials to M21s by changing the crown pommel with the ball pommel and later the eagle, M21s to M29s could have the M19 or M21 black grip changed to white or the whole hilt and blade if the tang was peened preventing just the grip being changed, M29s to M38s would have the ball pommel changed to the eagle. So over time a navy dagger could go through a whole load of changes, right from imperial to M38s you can find a mixture of parts from different eras and companies making up a T.R navy dagger.
No one at that time was collecting these so they were not concerned with textbook daggers, as long as the look of the dagger conformed to the new look design it was acceptable.
Also in the hard economical times updating was a way of saving money. This, also combined with parts possibly being replaced because of damage and quite possibly officers swapping between each other can also contribute to non textbook daggers.
This is why with all this that went on I don't think it would have been a big deal for companies to buy parts from other companies when needs be for any model including the M38, the look of the dagger would still remain basically the same and again creating non textbook daggers but still genuine period pieces.
Yes there are lots of post war parts daggers out there but I would bet there are also genuine period combination pieces as well. They done it with armys and other types of daggers so why not with navys.
New information is popping up all the time in the dagger collecting world, Wittmann has some new info on SAs and recent threads on here are revealing new (for me) information.
It makes me wonder what exactly is textbook and how many times do we need to see a combination of parts before we class it as an acceptable variation.
Just some info for anyone interested and me ranting on again lol.
Best Tomaz.

[dr73]

Hi Tomaz, you are correct about the fact that even imperial daggers were altered to adjust to the regulations of the TR period. It is also very plausible that manufacturers bought parts from one another. There is however a big difference between army daggers and navy daggers. There were more than 40 different manufacturers that produced army daggers. When it comes to navy daggers, it's a completely different story. My guess is that 60-70% of all TR navy daggers were produced by Eickhorn and WKC. Then a significant number by Alcoso, Höller and Hörster. The rest of the makers are scarce or even rare. For instance, try to find an Alcoso navy dagger in great condition. Even that is very hard nowadays.

Another big difference is the number varieties from the same producer. When you look at the army dagger, the variety is huge. Just take Eickhorn. 4 different crossguards, 4 different trademarks, different scabbard bands, pommels and screw configurations. All these parts were mixed. Just imagine the possible configurantions! And that's just one maker! Eickhorn navy (TR period): only two scabbards (hammered and lightning bolt), 1 pommel and 3 trademarks.

Because of the small amount of manufacturers and variety it's relatively easy to tell if all the parts of a navy dagger are made by the same manufacturer. It is also known that almost all makers of navy daggers produced their own parts (not talking about the ultra rare makers like Krebs, Klaas etc).
When it comes to textbook it's a matter of taste and what you believe. I like to be sure my navy dagger is unmessed with. Of course you can never be 100% sure but when you look at a navy dagger from one of the bigger manufacturers and all parts are clearly made by that particular manufacturer, you can be pretty sure. That's why I will never buy an Alcoso navy dagger with an Eickhorn scabbard. Nor would I buy an Eickhorn navy dagger with a Höller scabbard or Alcoso blade. But as I said, that's a matter of taste and believe

Danny

[Tomaz]

Hi Danny, I agree with with some of what you say but I also have a difference of opinion on others, but we are all entitled to come to our own conclusions.
Just a few observations that seem to go against what you have said, you mention that you like to see your daggers unmessed with and you would not buy a dagger with mixed parts from the larger companies who produced significant numbers, yet on page 5 post 46 of your sticky thread you show a Horster with an Eickhorn scabbard a wkc crossguard and a Holler grip with springy wire, from what I can see the fit, finish and patina look pretty good and consistent, do you think this has been messed with, on the next post (47) you show an Adolf Braun (Alcoso supplied) with a Holler scabbard.
Eickhorn also produced 2 cross guards the later one having a larger centre block.

Best Tomaz.

[Tomaz]

Not sure about the wire on the Horster it could just be the pics on my screen.

[Tomaz]

Here's an interesting combination I have just found, its a textbook Holler but has an early Eickhorn blade and comes complete with a grouping, documentation and photos, the portepee doesn't look like its been removed either but you never know.
Johnson Reference Books
Its the first one in the 2nd model navel section.

[SteveR]

Because the navy had been officially carrying daggers for 85 years when the third reich came in and with different designs for imperial, provisional reichsmarine, reichsmarine and kriegsmarine it can lead to a mixture of parts making up a navy dagger.
They could be constantly updated, imperials to M21s by changing the crown pommel with the ball pommel and later the eagle, M21s to M29s could have the M19 or M21 black grip changed to white or the whole hilt and blade if the tang was peened preventing just the grip being changed, M29s to M38s would have the ball pommel changed to the eagle. So over time a navy dagger could go through a whole load of changes, right from imperial to M38s you can find a mixture of parts from different eras and companies making up a T.R navy dagger.
No one at that time was collecting these so they were not concerned with textbook daggers, as long as the look of the dagger conformed to the new look design it was acceptable.
Also in the hard economical times updating was a way of saving money. This, also combined with parts possibly being replaced because of damage and quite possibly officers swapping between each other can also contribute to non textbook daggers.
This is why with all this that went on I don't think it would have been a big deal for companies to buy parts from other companies when needs be for any model including the M38, the look of the dagger would still remain basically the same and again creating non textbook daggers but still genuine period pieces.
Yes there are lots of post war parts daggers out there but I would bet there are also genuine period combination pieces as well. They done it with armys and other types of daggers so why not with navys.
New information is popping up all the time in the dagger collecting world, Wittmann has some new info on SAs and recent threads on here are revealing new (for me) information.
It makes me wonder what exactly is textbook and how many times do we need to see a combination of parts before we class it as an acceptable variation.
Just some info for anyone interested and me ranting on again lol.
Best Tomaz.

[thebig]

Here's an interesting combination I have just found, its a textbook Holler but has an early Eickhorn blade and comes complete with a grouping, documentation and photos, the portepee doesn't look like its been removed either but you never know.
Johnson Reference Books
Its the first one in the 2nd model navel section.

Hi Tomaz.

I'm sorry, but it's not a correct example. Are you really sure that the man on the picture is the owner of this dagger, which seems to be a KM dagger by Hörster with a blade from a M 1929 dagger by Eickhorn? It's not easy to say, but the scabbard on the picture seems to be a lightning bolt one. And the portepee on the picture seems to be shorter as the portepee on the dagger. On the same website you can find a pattern 1929 dagger which was already sold for 1395$. The maker is HIC. Who is this? Do you know it? I don't. Also a parts dagger.

Best,
Oleg.

[thebig]

Gentlemen,

here a comment of my friend and autor of many books about an edged weapons including the book "Deutsche Marinedolche " Mr. Hermann Hampe:

"Gentlemen,

unfortunately I am not a member of this forum, too much time consumed by writing books on various topics.

My friend and co-author "thebig" told me about this interesting post.
To make a long story short: During my visits in many German archives owned by the government, I was never able to found any written proof about the selling of parts of the German 1938 pattern dagger between various companies. That does not mean it never happened. But if a collector wants to invest - if the purchase of an old Nazi dagger can ever be an investment - securely, so he should be focussed imo on genuine parts 1938 pattern daggers.
This is not about the scarce transitions we can see on German Naval daggers. I am aware of Imperial navies carried through the Weimar times and sometimes until 1945, we will show Admiral Carls transitional dagger in our new book for example. But 1938 pattern daggers with mixed parts are always in need of an explanation. Of course, this is just my humble opinion, I perfectly know that many dealers are having another point of view.
Thank you so much for your time, and all the efforts you are spending on German daggers.
Best;
Hermann"

Hope it will be interesting for you.
Best regards,
Oleg.

[Tomaz]

Thanks for the replies guys, im not Whittmanns biggest fan but flicking through his navy book last night I see that we both have the same opinion on companies trading with each other. It will have to be left to our own opinions.
Best Tomaz.

[thebig]

Hi Tomaz,
just to know, "we both have a same opinion", did you mean you and TW?
Best,
Oleg.