Hi all,

What are your opinions about this dagger?








Thanks for your opinions!

-Remco

OK buddy here is my take on it.

Now let me start by saying that whilst I have been for the most part an enthusiastic army collector I usually only collect the early stuff with unique fittings. This has generic fittings so not really my preference or something I would normally get excited about, however I do have one of each generic type as a representative example in my collection.

This is a very fine looking dagger & one I would be very happy to put in my collection. The condition is outstanding and SMF is not a common maker if you collect by maker marks. If i did collect by maker mark I would much rather have this SMF with generic fittings than one produced with their own early hilt fittings because the quality was pretty poor (unless you got a brass based example). SMF `in house` x guard is by common consent just about the most hideous thing ever produced and I would certainly prefer this one.

If it`s yours congratulations & if you are thinking about it then go for it! NICE dagger!

I can say I have not seen a SMF with generic fittings - Personally I like the unique SMF bird I am not aware SMF made daggers later in the period makes me wonder if this blade is original to the rest of the dagger?

I agree with Landser. Very nice dagger by a not too often seen maker.

Thanks for all your opinions!

Tom gets my vote!.

Would be interesting to see the blade tang on this one.

WW2-Collector gets my vote. Is he Tom?

I have seen a couple over the years that had geeric fittings. Did they also have the blades switched? Maybe they did and maybe they didn`t. Who knows?

But, looking at the dagger then it appeals to my logic that if this dagger had a crap blade then the exterior would not look as it does, in a notably fine condition with matching well cared for finish.

On the other hand that blade also in fine condition would not have come from a beater so what is the advantage to switch blades? Also bearing in mind that given the comments above are assumed to be correct it would have required breaking an early more valuable dagger?

Doesn`t add up to me. Thats all I have to say on this one.

V,
A shot of the blade tang would make my mind up. If it is the later shouldered version then I could accept this dagger as an extremely rare post 1936/7 production piece from SMF. If it is a tapered tang, then it comes down to how much of a purist you are!.
Your logic regarding the fittings / condition etc makes perfect sense, however on a denazified piece or a dagger from a maker who's fittings are known to have been extremely poor quality on their recognised pattern dagger, a spare blade is not beyond the imagination.

The fact that you have seen others with the same later config certainly goes in this daggers favour!.

** It could even be a luft blade in which case a shot of the blade tang is irrelevant, I cannot remember if all SMF Lufts had plated and stick eagle marked blades?.

As requested hereby some additonial pictures.





Thanks!

-Remco

Looks very good to me, that fit from blade tang to crossguard is perfect and has the later style shouldered tang expected on a dagger with Generic fittings..

Nice scarce dagger from a maker that was only thought to have produced an early config. Congrats.

Nice call VB a first for me

The tang answers that question.

unusual for sure.. nice condition. Kevin.