Article about: This dagger is a real treat to see. It is one of the few early SS daggers we see that was equipped with solid nickel fittings, but also with a nickel/chrome plating over that nickel! Check i
I meant pictures relevant to plating or to small abrasion to the wood--half a grip doesn't seem relevant? ...........................................
It is relevant I think if the claim is that damage like a gouge is somehow exposing factory “dyed” wood versus somebody trying to camouflage it with some kind of a black finish. Having seen a number of SS dagger grips that had postwar applied repairs/finishes that ranged from a black shoe dye, shoe polish, current production black wood finishes, paint etc. and maybe even a home made finish - sometimes if more recent still having a lingering chemical smell. Some of them looked just like this example - the photo I posted showing that the original period black surface finish is only on the exposed outer portions of the grip.
As for the matter of plating I have to think of how I want to present it. Best Regards, Fred
Last edited by Frogprince; 03-10-2020 at 05:51 AM.
Reason: minor clarification
...................................... Im sure the plating here is coming off just like plating on all plated daggers........age, storage, etc.......
You say "As for the plating it’s bad by definition because it’s coming off in large areas, and the Germans had already had extensive successful experience for many decades. Which is not to say that plating cannot be compromised and lose its adhesion to the base metal." so if plating is coming off it is not period? Your second sentence directly then contradicts this.....so you do or do not think this plating is period? straightforward question here.
Briefly: It's moisture that is the primary enemy of multiple metals, which is why after centuries of tradition during the Imperial era it became a standard practice for items like the blades on dress swords to plate them to try and keep them from corroding. And quite a few of them have survived in excellent condition or at least reasonably intact. Nickel plating, while not universal, (only on some) firearms also having a fairly decent track record for durability. More to the point here: the SS dagger posted is very severely corroded but the plating on the upper locket appears to be holding together (all things considered) IMO more consistently than that on the subject dagger - especially since nickel silver mounted political daggers of all types might sometimes have some signs of verdigris - but the daggers themselves are intact. Instead of disintegrating.
And in answer to your direct question about TR period plating what I said earlier I think still applies:
by Frogprince
..................... Not in hand it would probably take me some really close looking and maybe a limited (or more extensive if needed) disassembly to arrive at a more definitive conclusion at this juncture. (Not a practical approach at this point, with not really bad - but also not high resolution photographs there is not much else I think to say.)
PS: One of the problems here IMO is that in the past picture quality has on some occasions been a problem when trying to make a definitive evaluation when all of the relevant factors are not really known - and best estimates have to take their place. That said, my sense of the dagger is still what it was as the discussion evolved. Best Regards, Fred
Thanks Fred--can you please show us some comparison pictures of your other daggers' grips, for comparison with the areas you point out on the original dagger? You always post this destroyed (ostensibly) m36
Sounds like without an in hand inspection you have provided about as much info as can be had, which makes sense. IN hand is necessary for daggers.
Thanks Fred--can you please show us some comparison pictures of your other daggers' grips, for comparison with the areas you point out on the original dagger? You always post this destroyed (ostensibly) m36
Sounds like without an in hand inspection you have provided about as much info as can be had, which makes sense. IN hand is necessary for daggers.
To what end purpose? The guys that I learned from who were long time collectors told me to look at the same period relatively unmolested SA daggers that were made by: the same companies, same approximate time frame, machines, and workers with their skill sets if I wanted a more accurate basis for comparison. The areas that I pointed out, if clarifications are necessary to resolve what is actually there, really needs (IMO) much better quality pictures. As for the dagger I posted I do have some other examples, but for the sake of convenience I used the one I posted to try and make a point without a lot of discussion. (Something that has occurred in times past with some more technical discussions there has been a problem with some participants that did not have a basic understanding of what the physical evidence was showing and it was pictures that helped). My point here being that failure analysis can be an aspect of collecting that sometimes can be more than just an average look at something.
As for “in hand” that is certainly what I prefer. But currently with the advances in digital photography, and some good lighting it might not always be necessary depending on what the item is. At shows with daggers now I might not even bother to pick some of them up, because just by looking I see issues that I don’t like. And it’s not just daggers. The same is now true for some guns in the collectible category where the exterior aspects might at first look OK. But if something seems out of place I will probably listen to my instincts. Posted below a not as photogenic smaller image example that is one of the others that were mentioned. Minus the grip with a very badly corroded crossguard - but I think still a (relatively) decent upper scabbard fitting. Best Regards, Fred
OK, so please permit me to restructure and rephrase what I was trying to say in response to your earlier reply.
by Title King
Thanks Fred--can you please show us some comparison pictures of your other daggers' grips, for comparison with the areas you point out on the original dagger? You always post this destroyed (ostensibly) m36
Sounds like without an in hand inspection you have provided about as much info as can be had, which makes sense. IN hand is necessary for daggers.
A fairly serious TR era gun collector that went to a lot of shows - as a beginner I had no experience in daggers, and when I started there was no college or university that taught a course or courses in “Dagger-ology”. So I availed myself of the help of some dealers, but mostly it was the more serious collectors who told me that original un-messed with SS daggers were the hardest to find, and gave me some hints on what to look for. Something that I paid a lot of attention to because I used to see guys with lots of “beater” daggers that they had purchased for parts, and had even seen piles of discards on tables before the public was let in and the “dagger mechanics” had to put away their tools. One of the pieces of advice being to study how the (relatively unmolested) SA daggers were put together such as the quality of the fit and finish of the grip, the blade etc. With other kinds of daggers the advice might be different. Now after years of study and collecting I’m well past the initial stage, and know that some of the so-called hobby leaders did not or do not have the in-depth knowledge that I have seen in gun collecting, and some seemed to also have made bad judgements/guesses and/or made things up (I would be remiss to not add that this forum has seen some significant efforts that has corrected some factual and historical errors that were at one time widely believed).
More to the point here - one of things that I studied more intently than some others were the chained types which has a carryover effect on the M1933 types. And so there is no confusion - what I’m referring to now is that some of the M1936 types now in circulation used to be M1933 daggers that had been modified with recycled M1936 parts added, or in some cases were adapted with new parts so the net result is the same. Which is why I became interested in this dagger with the better images posted here showing how well the plating survived on a M1936 that lost it’s wood grip, scabbard rusted and pitted, and had its crossguards mostly disintegrate. My other point being that when you look at the pommel of a period sword you can see where over time a hand will cause the plated finish to wear off which is normal. But what appears to be missing plating on the dagger in question does not look like normal wear like you see on a sword, pistol, or rifle. So what caused it, and why with a 2/3 copper base metal? For me that is the puzzle and what caught my attention. Best Regards, Fred
Last edited by Frogprince; 03-12-2020 at 05:28 AM.
Reason: text addition
I think the wear looks like I would expect on the subject dagger, considering other plated daggers I've seen with flaking.
Fred--returning to the grip, i still want to see some of your early m33 grips to compare to the abrasion you point out on this one (you said to what end--this is the end, comparing and showing what you are talking about in re color above and below abrasions).
Well here are my 2 cents:
Looking closely at the wear of the scabbard and seeing it discolour from black up front to brownish at the back to me that is nothing more then bad storage and removed "Flugrust" nothing more nothing less.
I have had SS daggers before in my vault that showed similar colour changes and there is no sunlight in my vault only too most moisture!
WD40 removed a bit but once the surface has been seriously been affected you will not get the black anodised colour back.
The top of the scabbardfitting has a slight bend and that could be an indicator for an opened up action.
The grip: i see disclour (read to much black) on places where i wouldnt expect these, to me it doesnt looked unmessed with.
The big question is: do we take the word of a seller that says it would have been a possible upgrade?
If so...then please explain to me why this would be an upgrade?
In the days when it came out of the factory this nickelsilver would be shiny as hell, there would be no need for any plating at all.
what i do know is that a lot of badly stored pieces were chromeplated after the war.......
I guess this is more a "what do you believe" then a question of who is right, as no one can prove it with period advertisement that it was a possible upgrade.
Like so many other times its up to you gents!
Are you a believer or not
I am not sure if any period documentation evidences this "option" or variation. I know Witty's book says "chrome plated" was an option. I have seen other early daggers that show remnants of such plating.
In re the grip, these Pack grips do seem to brown out quicker than others!
Having some other projects to do today, I will try and see if I can find some already taken images. Not so much now, I used to see some guys with PW plating on all sorts of things. For some of my work projects at the time I used a specialty plater that did a lot of Aerospace work. Something that far exceeded the ability of the much much much cheaper "home brew" plating that could be prone to failure for various reasons. As for wear vs. lifting/flaking - off hand I don't remember what I might or might not have images of - and as I have mentioned at various times and places I like TW's book and consider it a valuable asset. But he also made some wrong assumptions stated as facts, and for some sections used less knowledgeable contributors that also made errors stated to be facts along with some "authenticated by publication" fakes (most fortunately in the minority). Best Regards, Fred
by Title King
.
only too most moisture!
Bookmarks