Bad copy.....just look at this "honour"dagger.
Scabbard is rusty, blade has wear...but a pristine grip, new as hell......and new it is.
Scabbard fittings are new but top screws are heavily rusted...hmmm what happened to the Original scabbard fittings?
Parts Original with newly added guards, grip and scabbard fittings....bad combi!
they are getting better... still bad
I agree with Gerrit,a stinker.
The engraving is very crude which lacks depth and is sloppy. If I were the SA man receiving this..I would want refund.
A plain early SA Eickhorn dagger would show more craftmanship and beauty.
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
Agreeing with the previous comments, IMO a classic example of somebody who has had at least some training/experience in the gunsmith trades of engraving and checkering (this was also not unknown with European workers circa 1970's usually with better condition examples, and better workmanship - it varies). That for this dagger also was postwar applied to a "beater" (poor) condition standard issue SA dagger/parts to try and make it more valuable. Likewise with the supposed supporting "documentation" that has been added to try and establish (supposedly) some "provenance" for the dagger. Best Regards, Fred
All of the above are certainly true, but even the "documents" are suspicious. Why would the recipient of a numbered high honor dagger be a common soldier?
"Much that once was, is lost. For none now live who remember it."
Nice try. Ruined a decent original dagger though
- even if it was a worn example.........