Opinions on SA Dagger - RZM M7/72
Hello guys,
Not been around these parts for a while but wanted to ask your valuable opinions on this SA dagger I have the chance of owning. It looks ok to me but what do you reckon? Blade looks good with cross graining visible but what about the cross guard fit?
Sorry for the photos, this is all I have to go on at the moment.
Cheers
Chris
Hello Chris, To tell you the truth, I'm not liking it. M7/72 was Karl Robert Kaldenbach of Solingen. Kaldenbach is a 10 Rarity on the McSaar rarity scale. The crossgrain on this piece you show looks to be a fake crossgraining. Take a look around at some of the minty blades displayed here on the forum and you'll see the glaring differences between the genuine and the not genuine crossgraining. Nothing is matching on this dagger-the pommel nut, for example, is a total mismatch for the guards. The sheath fittings are not matching the guards, etc. It may be just the camera angle, but the RZM actually looks to be crooked on it as well. Overall, I'm thinking this is a put together from various parts-both real and fake, but the blade itself is a major fake. It is, as said, a Very Rare maker for the SA's and fake blades of Kaldenbach's are now showing up everywhere-even on eBay. Some clever lad has apparently gotten a hold of one here and mixed it with various parts to make himself a "rare SA" to sell to the unsuspecting collector.
William
"Much that once was, is lost. For none now live who remember it."
Hi Chris..maybe better lighting conditions would be in order...direct flash washes out all detail...there seem to be some issues William has pointed out.. Im curious of the crossguards..and because of the extreme lighting..the guards appear to be oxidized. Are you able to rub your finger on those guards?....Im just curious what they really may be beneath. Can you also show pics beneath the lower crossguard with the blade still in? i want to see the blade shoulder fit..to the crossguard.
Love the woodRegards Larry
close ups please of the grip to upper guard fit....both sides
It is not the size of a Collection in History that matters......Its the size of your Passion for it!!
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
Thanks gents,
I will request the additional photos and see what is forthcoming. I'm glad I posted it
Chris
Im not dismissing it, need indeed better pics but my 2 cents:
the scabbard fittings are chrome plated steel and not in a good state as there is rust ( thats important!)
The brown over black paint is also correct for a late scabbard.
Now the guards seem to be the late potmetal as they should, but they seem to have lost all chrome.
Thin layer chrome on cheap potmetal does easily come off, and looking at the scabbard fittings the storage could be part of the reason of the chrome loss of the guards.
The chrome plated nut looks to have a bit of rust/ corrosion itself and that would fit the fitting state
But i would like to see closeups of it to compare with the fittings.
The grip is a lovely one and fits the guards very good, important is the fact that the eagle is made of the same material as the guards, and im pretty sure they are a Original set.
Looking at the throat to guard the scabbard probably belongs to the grip, so that leaves us with the blade.
The overall fit is very good for a late '42 dagger, and the lower guard to throat fit is as good as they come.
The blade is the typical high ridge rzm one, and the Motto etch is deep enough, the shoulder fit ( blade into guard) is superb no gaps.
In fact this dagger is not as bad as it looks at first sight.
Better pics will tell which opinion will stand
regards,
Ger
Ger, take a look at the 4th photo and enlarge it. The upper guard/grip fit is extremely off and it doesn't look to be normal shrinkage, as it's angled differently. The lower left hand corner of the grip on the Lower guard is also looking very unusual. Again, do a click on enlargement of the grip eagle. The eagle has no finish on it at all and seems to be a rough zink made piece? A late period aluminum, is okey, but what is this one made of? In the 1st 2 photos, do a click-on enlargement and see what you make of the unusual coarse looking crossgrain-especially so on the reverse side. I've dealt with many an SA, but the appearance on the blade of this one is troublesome. I've been seeing alot of fake SA blades showing up all over-eBay and who knows where else, and this one is suspicious to my eyes.
William
"Much that once was, is lost. For none now live who remember it."
Ive seen that also William, but IMO its just the guard that isnt set straight on the grip, it just has to turn a bit to the right, thats all.
The eagle is made of zinq just like the guards.
Ger
by gerrit
Im not dismissing it, need indeed better pics but my 2 cents:
the scabbard fittings are chrome plated steel and not in a good state as there is rust ( thats important!)
The brown over black paint is also correct for a late scabbard.
Now the guards seem to be the late potmetal as they should, but they seem to have lost all chrome.
Thin layer chrome on cheap potmetal does easily come off, and looking at the scabbard fittings the storage could be part of the reason of the chrome loss of the guards.
The chrome plated nut looks to have a bit of rust/ corrosion itself and that would fit the fitting state
But i would like to see closeups of it to compare with the fittings.
The grip is a lovely one and fits the guards very good, important is the fact that the eagle is made of the same material as the guards, and im pretty sure they are a Original set.
Looking at the throat to guard the scabbard probably belongs to the grip, so that leaves us with the blade.
The overall fit is very good for a late '42 dagger, and the lower guard to throat fit is as good as they come.
The blade is the typical high ridge rzm one, and the Motto etch is deep enough, the shoulder fit ( blade into guard) is superb no gaps.
In fact this dagger is not as bad as it looks at first sight.
Better pics will tell which opinion will stand
regards,
Ger
+1 Totally Agree With Gers assessment
Heard back from the seller - More photos coming tomorrow
Thanks again
Chris
An interesting thing-enlarge the very first photo(the one of the reverse side) and double click it larger. Am I seeing the same huge crude looking crossgraining on the Scabbard as well as on the blade? It looks to be identical in size on the sheath as is on the blade.
William
"Much that once was, is lost. For none now live who remember it."
Similar Threads
Posting Permissions
.
Bookmarks