Tom Kendall Military Antiques - Army Crossguard Reference

[Tomaz]

Here are a couple of other thoughts to ponder over, I would even question if Holler made their type 1 guard because why go from making your own guard to using Pack type 3's for their 2nd guard, and did Wingen out of the four guards they used make the one guard that is attributed to them after first using two guards from another company (Pack) and then finishing with the generic B.

The attributed Wingen guard does seem to be unique but at the same time it does have a Pack look to it and with them previously using two Pack guards could Wingen have commissioned this specifically designed guard from Pack before switching to the cheaper to purchase generic B, just a thought. One other guard i noticed on your site is the Paul Weyersberg type 2, this i also think is a Pack type 3, you can spot this Pack type at a glance by the sharp angle of the top wing feather on the second row of the left wing, all the other features match up as well, the only difference on the Weyersberg is the hand enhancement, mainly on the eye, wreath and area inside the wreath around the swas.

I have to say the pictures on your site are first class which show all the details very clearly, it is these intricate details that cannot be duplicated accidentally that allows us to attribute these guards to specific companies. I am glad to see these amendments made to your excellent reference site.

Best Tomaz.

[T Kendall]

Hi Tom, i am pleased to see the updates you have made to your cross-guard reference site regarding the Herder, Wingen and Generic B guards as all being the same guard, i have always thought this myself. When you find the exact same intricate details on guards like you do with these three then there has to be some kind of link between all of them, it would be impossible for independent companies to design and manufacture their own guards with all these same intricate details, and for some to say that a different company had to have made a guard just because it differs with a tiny dip in the head or a tiny angle to the body when the other 99.9% is exactly the same sounds a bit ridiculous to me. I think its more likely the same company made the guard but with a slight alteration to their design or it was altered in house by hand, either by the company who cast the guard or by the company who purchased the guard to produce their daggers, you have to ask, would a company use someone else's design if they were making their own parts, i don't think so.
I've also said in the past that the Holler type 4 should be before the type 3, i think the maker mark on the blade also indicated this. I think Holler finished off their type 2 production run with less enhanced type 2's (known as type 4) with generic scabbards, so i also agree there is actually only three guards Holler used, type 1 - type 2 (pack type 3) also with less enhancement and generic scabbards and type 3. Should the Holler type 2 not be attributed as a Pack type 3 on your site though ?

Best Tomaz.

Tomaz
Thank you very much for your comments about my homemade website allot of blood sweat and tears have been put into it. I appreciate your input and can tell by it you are a true army dagger enthusiast like myself. I have not re read the above dialog (posts) concerning this but will comment based on my current beliefs. Your observations on the Holler guards certainly have some merit IMO. For starters I agree the Holler Type-2 is nothing more than a Pack Type-3 Enhanced by Holler so technically it really should not be considered a unique Type manufactured by Holler same for the Type-4 except In the case of the Type-4 I do not believe this guard even exhibits any hand work directly attributable to Holler as the Type-2 does ? I will stand corrected on this if someone has studied this and can point out any Holler attributable enhancement details to the Type-4. I have seen many more Horster army daggers fitted with this same punched eye Pack Type-3 guard. So really if you get down to it I do agree Holler only manufactured in house 2 crossguards and used only two non in house guards the WKC Type-1 and Pack Type-3. Now the question is why haven't i reflected this on my reference ? Well I have removed the Type-4 and have been reluctant to do so of the Type-2 based dagger just based on the fact they are unique Holler configurations from the unique Holler enhanced crossguard to the pommel to the scabbard bands they are always very high quality and seem to be mostly fitted with the same pommels & scabbards which have amazing detail to the bands (acorns). As far as the chronological order of the usage of these guards You could be right that the Type-4 could be before the Type-3. I think with some study as you said of the maker marks etc a logical determination could be made but I never bothered to concern myself with this as I never believed the Type-4 was worthy of a separate Type but I do agree Holler used the guard but in very-very limited numbers. So in summary I almost made these corrections this past week when I revamped the Unattributed Guards but chose just to remove the Type-4. But Technically your right I think the reference would be perfectly correct to reflect a Holler Type-1 - Holler Type-2 and in the line below WKC Type-1 and Pack Type-3 as other guards they used. I have planned too and not got to it yet but will add the pack Type-3 to the Holler section as well as the Pack Type-3 to the Horster section and the Generic-A to the Eickhorn section as I know some savvy collectors who firmly believe Eickhorn used this guard albeit very briefly. Well Tomaz i hope this answers your questions and yes in the future I should really remove the Holler Type-2 as you said - after all it is just an enhancement variation. Love to hear comments form the other collectors on this subject. I will reply to your other post below tomorrow as I do not have enough time tonight to properly respond to it.

[Tomaz]

Here is my Holler type 2 (Pack type 3) which has the Pack type of lazy eye, it has like you say Tom lots of hand work done to the pommel, cross-guard and scabbard bands which also feature two acorns on each side of the bands, the blade also has cross-grain running down the center section.

[gerrit]

Tomaz the dagger you show is a lovely one but i have a few remarks.
Yours is missing the typical handwork i like to see on a Höller type 2:
The toolmark behind the eye, the typical wave pattern on the chest ( which are also on the later Höller 4th type-which you think is just an another 3)
Then i dont see the pebbling on the acorns on the scabbard bands.
For me these features makes it a desirable Höller type 2.
To compare is post a pictures which shows both types.
On the left yours and on the right side Peter P. his type 2, which i see as a textbook one with all the Höller features.

Best
Ger

[Tomaz]

That's the thing with hand work Ger, its individual workers who do it. I done a lot of research before acquiring this one and found another 3-4 the same, i will post another one tomorrow when i get home and find the pics.

Best Tomaz.

[Tomaz]

Here's another pic of mine, not sure if that is a tool mark at the side of the eye or not and there are other tool marks on the neck.

[gerrit]

Look at the crossguard on the right, then next to the eye, on the right side and a bit below his eye more neckwise, you see 2 moon shaped markings.
Look at the acorns and wave pattern on the chest and compare them, you can see the difference clearly, just double click on the picture to magnify.

Best
Ger

[dr73]

I agree with Tom that the Holler Type-2 is a Pack Type-3 Enhanced guard. But I think it is legitimate to call it "Type 2 - Höller" because the enhancement is typical for Höller and done very consistantly. Meaning that all Höller Type 2 guards practically have the exact same enhancement.

Danny

[Tomaz]

I agree that most of what are currently known as Holler type 2's have the same hand enhancements but to categorize a guard by this enhancement when all seem to be in agreement that it is a Pack manufactured type 3 does not make sense to me. Your last sentence Danny is a bit contradicting when you say "all Holler type 2 guards practically have the exact same enhancement" and as i have shown with my Holler and another one below from lakesidetrader.com archives AR-13053 there are quite a few variations that can be found to the enhancements. The one below has extra chisel detail to the acorns but no chisel detail to the neck and head and like mine it has the Pack type lazy eye but chiseled in deeper by Holler. Better pics are on the link above.

[Tomaz]

Here's my idea of how the generic scabbard and white grip could fit into the Holler production run if what are currently known as the Type 3 and 4 were the other way around. This could also explain why the generic scabbard is seen although not very often on what could have been their 5th production run. The white grip that is often seen on what i have as their Type 2 guard also indicates this guard as being the last one used, previously mentioned in an earlier post by Kevin.

1st run - WKC or Type 1 own guard ?
2nd run - WKC or Type 1 own guard ?
3rd run - Pack type 3 hand enhanced by Holler
4th run - Pack type 3 less/no enhancement by Holler and fit with generic scabbard.
5th run - Type 2 own guard finished off left over generic scabbards then used own and white grips.

Best Tomaz.