Good afternoon colleagues, I’m interested to know your opinion about the SS dagger with double manufacturer’s markings. Thank you, with respect Anatoly.
Determining the authenticity of a SS dagger
Good afternoon colleagues, I’m interested to know your opinion about the SS dagger with double manufacturer’s markings. Thank you, with respect Anatoly.
Last edited by dri4ak; 11-09-2023 at 02:50 PM.
This is not the calibre of what is to be expected from the initial Transitional period and especially coming from Eickhorn. It looks like someone just gathered together all Eickhorn related fittings some from the early and mid period and put it all together.
I dont know whats going on with the grip and why it looks like that.
Can we see the scabbard ?
Unless someone else has thoughts on this ..Im inclined to say authentic parts dagger mixed periods.
Again..I would expect a more consistent initial transional period fit.
Regards Larry
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
Certainly a mystery, Larry.
I saw the benchmark "8" on the lower guard and I'm not sure if that is correct for a reworked Rohm dagger, but don't remember ever seeing one. I also am not certain whether it was just loose 1934 Rohm blades which were redone ... or entire daggers.
And that grip leaves me wondering as well.
Dave
Photos
As you asked
With respect, Anatoly
Good afternoon, I have posted additional photos. What worries me about this dagger: 1) the SS symbol (it seems to me that it is not from the manufacturer Carl Eickhorn). 2) There are remnants of varnish on the black handle of the dagger. 3) In the 4th photo you can see chipping and peeling of the wood, as if the screw was too tight. 5) In the new photo that I found on the Internet, the Carl Eickhorn logo is located on top and RZM on the bottom, on my dagger it’s the other way around. I hope for your experience and knowledge, I am just taking my first steps. Thank you, best regards Anatoly.
The photo you are showing in your post above shows an Eickhorn Large double oval which is an earlier logo. This cannot be compared to the logo in your first post.
The rest of the dagger as Dave and Myself said has some issues of concern.
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
Larry, I also found on the website RZM Numbers a photo of the manufacturer RZM 941/36/SS where the spelling of the numbers 4 and 1 is different from my dagger. Which photo do you think has the correct spelling? I post the photo.
Back to to the original dagger shown... all solid nickel fittings except the top crossguard? Perhaps, but I just can't see it leaving the Eickhorn factory that way. There just aren't that many of these around, but I did find one that compares favorably to this one sans the plated top crossguard: Transitional Eickhorn SS Dagger 1936 | Lakesidetrader
Similar Threads
Posting Permissions
.
Bookmarks