Opinions on Uncomfortable SA

**Geoff Ward** · 10-17-2021, 03:49 AM

Dagger itself does not fit well in scabbard.. very difficult to remove. I have seen this when the dagger has been dropped on the lower fitting, crushing the ball and shifts the lead counterweight. I also am concerned about the scabbard being " anodized"? as most RZM scabbards are painted?

The Eagle does not exhibit anywhere near quality installation!!
More Photos.

**Espenlaub Militaria** · 10-17-2021 03:49 AM

We also buy and trade your items and full collections!

**Drambejz** · 10-17-2021, 03:54 AM

The sharp edges looks to me like someone tried to polish the blade while didn't want to ruin the darkening and failed.

**Larry C** · 10-17-2021, 01:45 PM

Scabbard is early including the grip .Poorly fitted grip eagle but this late type is correct loosing all its silvering.
Parts dagger.

As far as the RZM number is concerned ...the RZM did issue a Permit on 1934-10-1
It appears that Paul Weyersburg..did not benefit from having a number instead of an identity and I can only say that it is possible Weyersburg produced a small number of these blades.

I am only speaking on the RZM permit number only and not this actual blade.
The number appears to be good now that Geoff has provided greater photos and clarity.

The question: What was the motto and RZM number masked over with tape ?

If this is a Paul Weyersburg..than why such a sloppy job of the grip eagle ...AND....since they were issued a permit in 1934...why not any transitional daggers from this producer. Weyersburg ...the whole family of Weyersburgs listed did not produce junk.

As I said before in another thread ..I saw this sitting on a table at a show and seen what I have seen now ..I would put it back down.

The blade IMO is good as the etch appears correct...but seeing masking over something that should of been left untouched as rare as it is to see a Late RZM Weyersburg ....why is it there?

Regards Larry

**Dave H** · 10-17-2021, 04:23 PM

Larry,

Good overall evaluation. I agree

Looking at it again, I do not think that the motto / trademark were masked. It was everything BUT the motto / trademark that were masked. (?)

**Larry C** · 10-17-2021, 11:24 PM

Missed you at the Max Show Dave...hopefully Next year ?

**Dave H** · 10-18-2021, 02:33 AM

Sure.

**Anderson** · 10-18-2021, 05:40 AM

I've done acid etching of zinc plates in the past and the way I see it, the RZM M7 mark is a template adhered to the blade prior to etching. It may be a transfer type leaving gaps open around the maker mark that will be exposed to the acid. The rest of the blade on probably both sides would have been masked, but this could be with a brush applied masking agent.

That's what is done with zinc etching. It leaves a thick tar like layer. The blade is then lowered into the acid bath for a certain period to cut the steel. Where things may have gone wrong is the masking agent was not thick enough to protect the blade as well as the maker mark template protected the blade below it.

A slight acid shading has therefore occurred over most of the blade, except where the template provided the better surface protection. Effectively it has created a shadow of the template. That's a production mistake and a reject reason, unless it can be buffed out. Note the cross grain present under the section masked by the template, so adding the marker mark was an end of production process. And that is to be expected, the mark is the final seal of approval, but someone blew it.

**Geoff Ward** · 10-19-2021, 01:45 AM

Thank you all Gentlemen for all of your observations I have really enjoyed this discussion. It is a true testimony to the value of being a member of the forum. I hope it will help in keeping someone from making a mistake when in a similar situation. Even someone as "Thick-Headed" (according to my wife) as myself eventually can absorb the information if I hear it enough!

.

Regards, Geoff