I would have to agree with Ger regarding the typically seen P + D stamp versus this full name Paul Dinger stamp.
It would concern me because the level of modern damascus has increased greatly in recent years. I’m not talking about the stuff from Pakistan. Just something to be concerned with as anything out of place could mean trouble in such an esoteric niche as this.
by Billy G
Fair enough but thats not really the point is it?
First of all I just wanted to share with you guys my happiness and yes I was expecting some discussion about it thats ok.
The arguments so far were "I dont believe that the full name stamp and pattern of the damascus are authentic". So I posted references of in my opinion two greatest TR daggers collectors who are publishing their knowledge and got their hands on more daggers than we can dream of. I built confidence to buy it based on these references.
I have no problem admitting I was wrong but I would do that based on facts not feelings. Arguments like "I think, In my opinion, I wouldn't buy it, I don't believe.." don't help anyone and it reminds me home page of Ralfs website..
By all means post an item purchased because of happiness, but be aware a forum is about opinions and robust debate. That is how knowledge in the hobby advances. Appearance in a book published by a dealer isn't necessarily a cast iron guarantee of authenticity. My point was in Solingen during the TR era imitation damascus blades for daggers were an option for the buyer, the reason being it was much easier and quicker to produce. There was only about five master smiths who could work damascus in the 1930's in Solingen, so obviously their output was low and expensive. The acid treatment gave a damascus swirly surface appearance without the folding of the steel, which creates actual fissures in the steel. It's those black lines that acid can't replicate and you end up with a pock marked swirly texture with even patina. That's what I see on your blade. But that's an opinion.
I am aware of that and I have nothing against constructive debate. Lets just leave it I bet it will be misunderstood already anyway.
Well the only guarantees in life are death and taxes as BF once said.It may not be cast iron but Im not in position to question Wittmanns work or to prove he is wrong there. I'm using his books because they have been recommended to me and I found them really useful. If in the books is any misconception which dispute references I used I would like to know that. I have still time to return this item. But from my current perspective, Wittmann's work is a solid basis for determining authenticity.
First picture genuine damascus by Paul Dinger (Army daggers page 158 Wittmann) Second picture artificial (Luftwaffe daggers page 306 Wittmann) I see similarities with the first one. Also I didnt find any mention about artificial damascus made by Paul Dinger.
Im aware of it. PD was one of them.
We all know that Wittmann and Johnson were the ones that gave our hobby a great boost by publishing reference books.
Anyone who every wrote a book can tell you that insights and facts are just a snapshot of what is the truth at that moment.
You refer to Wittmann and Ralf Siegert, well if you are looking closely into his section of army daggers at his site (Wittmann) you will see its full of mistakes, not only in determination but also a lot of stuff he describes just isnt true.
Ralf Siegert has lost his reputation and status in the German collector world (banned on the MFF Forum) a couple of years ago because of his bad judgements, determinations and fake COA (certificate of authenticity).
His books are made with the help of collectors who mailed pictures of daggers which mostly he never examened in hand, on the first 20 sides of his army daggers reference books i saw so many mistakes that i sold it cheap on a German Forum as a second hand book.
As Anderson stated already, if its published in a book it doesnt always means its true-right.
Wittmann still refers that Eickhorn has 2 types of army crossguards, we all know by now there are 4.
He sold 2 boxes of the Reference book that Danny and i wrote in 2016 about german army daggers, he refered to the crossguards that we added in our book, but soon after that grapped back to his old knowledge and only calls them 1 or 2, its hard to teach an old dog a new trick it seems.
He describes for example an army partsdagger as unique with a scabbard he has never seen before, well that scabbard is the first style Pack scabbard with its typical XXX scabbardband style.
I wrote him an email about that dagger, and what is wrong with it.
He never replied on that email and the dagger is still for sale.
The fact is that the well has dried up, and good daggers are stuck in collections.
The dealers have to make money and a lot of them dont care what you get as long as they are paid......
So better stick to textbook and whats well accepted and known, then you will not be fed up with daggers that have costed you lots of money and are hard to sell in the future.
Just my advise, and this one is for free, it can save you a lot of headacke in the future
Best
Ger
Last edited by gerrit; 10-20-2021 at 06:42 PM.
Gerr I refered to Siegerts home page statement which has nothing to do with authenticity of the dagger. I used multiple stamp references and showed a dagger with the exact same design made by the same blacksmith for the same company.
I agree with what you wrote, but none of that has anything to do with confirming or refuting the references I used. Perhaps it would be ideal to standardize what "textbook" means. Is it just your book? Or also Johnsons and Wittmanns? Or Wittmanns aren't credible at all? If so why then? Because even when I asked, no one disputed any reference I used with any facts. That is also why I said that I was in favour of constructive debate, but so far that is not happening. If I'm talking about a specific piece and specific references and everyone else is throwing out general statements, that's not constructive.
I would leave it here. Thank you for your comment Gerr
Well Mike is quite easy to explain what we call "Textbook"
Textbook is a dagger when there are at least a certain batch made with exactly the same parts and material.
That saying a Paul Dinger would have the P + D on the tang and a number on the reserve side of the tang.
1 or 2 known examples are not textbook but more unique pieces for example.
Its also hard to compare pieces with the small black & white photographs that are published in those early reference books.
That is the reason Danny and I decided to give our army dagger book a nice option: a memory card which contains detailed pictures of every dagger we published in the book.
Therefore you can see for example a pommel or a crossguard on your computerscreen in full detail.
You talk about that the discussion about your dagger isnt more general then pointed towards your dagger.
Anserson explains why the pattern of your blade looks like acid instead of hammered damast.
Billy talks about your having fitting that are not standard used by Fredericius.
I talked about the non usual and rather clumsy hammered tangmarkings.
All in all pretty constructive for those who want to acknownledge that yours isnt exactly a standard damast piece of this maker.
I never take pleasure in questioning a dagger, as specially when its an expensive damast piece, so im not here to discourage you or piss you off.
I always try to help where i can, i have learned a bit through the years and it would be a pity to keep that all to my self.
Ger
Last edited by gerrit; 10-20-2021 at 07:48 PM.
Many years ago I owned a Dinger Army Damascus and knew of a fellow who was a dentist who lived in Toledo Ohio who owned a Fredericus produced Paul Dinger Damascus dagger. We exchanged images of our daggers, as his was a Fredericus and mine was a maker marked Tiger with the gold tiger cat & Tiger with Solingen just below the trade name Tiger as the caricature of the tiger appeared to be walking towards the blade point.
After quite a bit of research I discovered Paul Dinger WWII produced blades were only marked P + D.
As many may or may not be aware, Paul Dinger survived the war and was a prolific post war producer of Damascus blades. Just like everybody else in Germany, everyone had to work to survive.
Those blades he produced spelled his name completely to designate post war production he was producing. Remember, people were going to Solingen to hunt daggers, blades and parts down to produce parts daggers or find those daggers that were stored and forgotten.
I believe one of my reference books has that information in it or it may have come my way from people, who I had discussions with about blades that people. Tom Johnson was 1 of those people as he was selling, post war produced Paul Dinger Damascus blades.
IMHO, while the blade is very likely to be Paul Dinger made, it is highly likely it was post war produced.
I will try to find those images as I yet have them buried amongst documents and other images of items and original war time images of various subjects.
*Paul. There were two Dingers but I've got your point. About that I would quote form the Wittman's army book "Paul Dinger (no relation to Max), creator of the famous Hermann Goering Wedding Sword Damascus blade, usually stamped his monogram, P+D on one side of the tang, but he was also known to stamp his full name."
I meant by my point about that according to Wittmann it is known he used this stamp. I don't dispute it was used on less pieces. It would also make perfect sense from an engineering point of view to make your work easier. Instead of stamping your full name you can just use 3 stamping dies (based on double hitting some letters instead of full text on full name stamps it looks to me like single letter stamping dies)
In Wittmann's books I found three different daggers (two Luftwaffe and one Army) with the same pattern from PD. All in color across the page. Two of them have a smaller photo on previous/next page of the tang with a full name stamp. Third has P+D stamp.
I'm still trying to get one
Maybe my writing in english isn't as good as I would like toThe thing that started to bother me was that I made specific references to those comments that were ignored in next ones, and it started look to me like the main goal was to look for reasons why it should be repro.
The source of it would be perfect because it goes exactly against Wittmann's claim. Hopefuly it wont end on heresay.
Thank you Rich
Addendum: I've found the images of both daggers.
The dagger owned by the dentist is marked the same as the subject dagger. the blade the dentist owned spurred the research of why the differences as in this business of collecting, something so different begs questions to be asked.
Now I have to figure out how to use my scanner! Another note, the images are on the dark side but I believe with MS10 and imaging that could be lightened up some for better clarification.
Also, keep in mind that 1 off pieces produced for celebrities of the Reich, such as Goring's wedding sword follow little to no established pattern that is seen on pieces that were sold by a particular manufacturers order for officers or enlisted if the enlisted person was that fortunate to be gifted a Damast piece. Being that caliber of an item were typically a direct order to the blade smithy by passing the retail supplier.
Similar Threads
Posting Permissions
.
Bookmarks