Hello, I'm new to the fourm and hope someone can ID this dagger. I have searched the web and cant find a dagger blade made by Hackman & Co. I know they made some bayonets and the 2- fmous Vietnam knives as well as cutlery. I can only upload 1 picture at a time so I will describe it. It measures 15 inches end to end without scabbard. The double edged blade is 10 1/4 in. and handle is some type of plastic.The tang is stamped " HACKMAN & C0. over SORSAKOSKI. I found that that is a city in Finland where they had a plant. The brass pommel is engraved with a crown with a cross on top over script fancy J C Oover II and a star in the leaf border. I think it may be Russian or is it a fantasy dagger. Thanks viking-rune
Welcome to the Forum.
I think we need a photos or a scan.
Is that possible?
Thank you. I have to charge camera battery and will post pics in about an hour. I dont know how to set jpeg size on my new camera yet and the file is to large to upload.
I can't get pictures set low enought to upload. Any ideas?
Send the jpg file to
[email protected] and I will resize it for you.
Thank you Jim W. I will send them.
Here are the photos.
The Royal monogram is on the dagger pommel.
The grip should be a type of ivory.
Photo 2
photo3
Photo 4
Photo 5
Thank you for posting the pictures. The handle looks to be a type of plastic. The scabbard is missing one ring. Besides country of dagger I would like to know why I cant find a Hackman & Co. dagger after searching the www for hours. Thanks to all
Has anyone seen a dagger by Hackman & Co. before?
I went through my Russian books and their maker marks. I can not find this maker. Even though the book has an addendum with Russian makers.
Because the grip is not ivory, and because this maker is found no where, I think you have to face the possibility that your dqagger is a reproduction.
Where did you get the dagger?
Jim
Arguably, Finland was at one time under Russian control, but Hackman is a Finnish cutlery maker (of German descent) with a long history. Who at different times made bayonets, knives, misc. cutlery etc. etc. Sidenote: Circa WW II vintage Hackman Finnish Army (SKY) bayonets are not marked like this dagger, and the company is still in business.
I know that the Russian Federation (post Soviet) has adopted the old Imperial coat of arms. But as far as I know, the cipher of the last Tsar (Nicholas II) is not a part of that �package�. While not 100% the same as those found on period Imperial Russian officer�s sabers - the cipher (monogram) is that of Nicholas II of Russia. I have a late 19th century Russian naval dagger from the Russian arms factory at Zlatoust (with an ivory grip) that looks nothing like this dagger.
From what I am seeing - to me it looks like a relatively recent attempt to create or market a modern production naval style dagger. That in the process - has somehow acquired an Imperial era cipher. FP
Thanks to Jim W and Frogprince for this information. I think that your both right. I got this dagger from a collection of a deceased WW2 Vet. Along with this dagger I got a 2nd model Eickhorn Luft with hanger and portepee,a Eickhorn army with hanger and portepee and a Curt Hoppe SA dagger with leather hanger. The German daggers are in super condition and authentic. The cousin of the Vet didnt know what it was or were his cousin got it. I pretty much got this dagger as a freebee. Thank you
There were russian dress daggers made by Hackman.
2 Viking-rune: What happened with the other ring? Are you sure the handle is ivory? On the photos it does not look like one, but it just might be the pictures.
Hello, Jim W said it should be a type of ivory. I said it looks like a type of plastic. The other ring was gone when I bought the daggers.
I don't doubt that Hackman could have made daggers for the Soviets, or the Russian Federation. But unless they have gotten really, really, sloppy with their workmanship/attention to detail. This thing IMO is a fake/forgery (ie: altered). First image: a Russian coin from 1900 showing the cipher/monogram.
Second image; On the top we have marks from what looks like a set of pliers. Below it a misshaped Russian �N� with special attention to the right side. Also note that the letter is not centered that well under the crown. There are some other flaws, but I think you get the point that it�s poorly done. As for the star, I don�t remember it being on the period (Imperial era officer) sabers. But I will have to take a look this evening to be sure. Regards to All, FP
How can you compare coins and daggers?
Lwov, he is using the coin as an example of what the Tzars monogram should look like.
I find the example excellent. I myself looked for one and could not find anything this nice.
Jim
Thanks Frogprince, I see what your saying about the top nut and the star. I found a auction of the Forbes collection of Faberge eggs and a box and the Nicholas II monogram was exactly like my dagger pommel less the star. It looks more like J C instead of JJ. I also saw the monogram like mine for Nicholas II on other sites as well as the way it is on the coin. There must have been 2- variations.
quote:
Originally posted by Jim W:
Lwov, he is using the coin as an example of what the Tzars monogram should look like.
I find the example excellent. I myself looked for one and could not find anything this nice.
Jim
Jim, that is exactly what I meant. How can you compare a monograms from the coin to a monogram on the dagger.
Daggers were made by various makers, including private order daggers. Buy the way dagger's fittings might have been made by a third party.
Yes, the monogram is different, I would say totally different, and they could not have been the same. So how this comparison help us?
I do not mean this particular dagger. All I am saying is that you cannot compare apples and oranges.
I'm fairly certain that the "N" on Imperial sabers is the "JJ" (a mirror image) type, but can't confirm that at the moment. But even without that, this should be an easy one to resolve. I think that it is safe to say the Soviets would never have permitted the Tsar's monogram on a Soviet naval dagger. So the question is: Do current manufacture/issue Russian Federation naval daggers have the last Tsar's monogram on them? If not, then it's a fake. FP
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Prinz (aka "Frogprince"):
I'm fairly certain that the "N" on Imperial sabers is the "JJ" (a mirror image) type, but can't confirm that at the moment. But even without that, this should be an easy one to resolve. I think that it is safe to say the Soviets would never have permitted the Tsar's monogram on a Soviet naval dagger. So the question is: Do current manufacture/issue Russian Federation naval daggers have the last Tsar's monogram on them? If not, then it's a fake. FP
Fred, may I ask you what do you collect?
What does this dagger has to do with soviet daggers or current russian dagger?
Why are you keep comparing things which by definition cannot be compared to.
Respectfully,
Lwov
P.S. FYI current russian daggers do not have a tsar's monogram on it.
It looks like you do not have a clue what the monogram on the dagger means.
Yet you are making such unappealable statements as to the originality of the dagger.
P.P.S. As I said earlier I am not saying that this particular dagger is original period.
Great Points Lwov,,
Lwov, what is your opinion on this dagger?
Who do you believe the monogram is?
I value your opinion. I am going by the materials of the grip which is not correct and the proliferation of fake Imperial daggers.
I suspect you have much more knowlege about this.
Thank you
Jim
Lmov,
Most respectfully I would answer to you that don�t be fooled by my GDC avatar. It reflects only some, but not all, of my interests. And while I am not as active in them as I once was, I did seriously collect Russian arms in most categories (with fully automatic weapons not being one of them).
I agree that there is no comparison, as I have Imperial era daggers, but this dagger is not one of them. And we will see this evening how the monogram posted compares to unquestionably Imperial time period items.
In any event, I�m always open to new information, and if I am mistaken I want to learn. So I would repeat Jim�s questions: ...... �what is your opinion on this dagger? Who do you believe the monogram is?�
Again most respectfully,
Fred
Fred,
My inquiry as to what you collect was just a rhetorical question. I did not mean to question your knowledge on the subject we�re discussing here. My interest in same as yours cut to the chase and learn something new.
As to the monogram and its purpose: it was to reflect the time period during which the one who bears the dagger became an officer. For example, if the monogram is of Tzar Alexander that means that the officer�s rank was earned when Alexander was the emperor, even if the dagger is issued and made later on and another tzar � N II � was in place.
As to the dagger. I would not state so categorically that it is 100% fake. It might be parts dagger, for example. Usually, in hand inspection is the best way to make a determination on the authenticity of such items as this. Especially, because the fakes are widespread and sometimes are very well done. Having said that, I would say that there are concerns about authenticity of this dagger.
Lmov,
No offense intended, but as to the dagger posted being Imperial era, I have a lot more than just
"concerns". In fact my guess is that if a Hackman, it might have been made using techniques that did even exist at the time of the Russian monarchy.
quote:
As to the monogram and its purpose: it was to reflect the time period during which the one who bears the dagger became an officer. For example, if the monogram is of Tzar Alexander that means that the officer�s rank was earned when Alexander was the emperor, even if the dagger is issued and made later on and another Tzar � N II � was in place.
I don�t have a problem with that. For multiple nations, when the old monarch died they did not make officers go out and buy new sidearms. Especially when you consider the fact that sometimes the new monarch might only reign a short time which happened from time to time. Although I can say that I�ve see Imperial era Russian swords where the monogram was filed off during the Soviet era.
quote:
....As to the dagger. I would not state so categorically that it is 100% fake. It might be parts dagger, for example. Usually, in hand inspection is the best way to make a determination on the authenticity of such items as this....
There are �parts� daggers, and then there �other kinds� of parts daggers. For TR blades the first type might simply be a parts swap to upgrade a scabbard or crossguards, using period parts from another dagger. What I am seeing more of now for TR types, is an admixture of different postwar blades, grips etc. From different batches of fakes put together with maybe a sprinkling of original period parts. Thereby altering the combined characteristic �signatures� (if you will) of already known batches of fakes. To create a new dagger trying to escape detection. For myself with creations of new and old parts, I consider the whole thing to be a fake because of the addition of major component postwar parts. However, I do agree that sometimes with �parts� daggers you have to have them in hand to make a better determination. But with some daggers that have obviously postwar parts (seen via the Internet) you can just look at them and tell that they are fakes.
Having said all that: Late Soviet blades are past my cutoff point. But if someone says to me that Hackman in Finland made new production daggers for the post WW II Russian Navy I would be OK with that. It seems reasonable, and I have no information to the contrary. So my problem is not with what is below the pommel cap.
But with the pommel cap itself. That is the result of an attempt to somehow make this an Imperial era dagger, which it is not .
PS: I did look at one of my sabers last night, and found out that it actually has the �JC� configured �N II� monogram. But that is about the only thing that matched. Almost all of the details are different - with some of them being
significant.
I even thought about posting an image for comparison purposes. But over time I�ve seen so many guys post TR daggers for comment. When what they were really looking for was how to make �product improvements�. So I decided against it. PLEASE NOTE: That was a general comment only, and
NOT directed at anyone specific.
Fred
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Prinz (aka "Frogprince"):
So my problem is not with what is below the pommel cap. But with the pommel cap itself. That is the result of an attempt to somehow make this an Imperial era dagger, which it is not .
Fred
Fred,
So what you are saying is that the pommel with the monogram is fake and otherwise the dagger is good.
Did I understand you correctly?
P.S. all post ww II soviet daggers were made by by only one manufacturer in Zlatoust.
quote:
Fred,
So what you are saying is that the pommel with the monogram is fake and otherwise the dagger is good. Did I understand you correctly?
P.S. all post ww II soviet daggers were made by by only one manufacturer in Zlatoust.
Lwov,
On April 19th you said:
�Daggers were made by various makers, including private order daggers . Buy the way dagger's fittings might have been made by a third party. Yes, the monogram is different, I would say totally different, and they could not have been the same. So how this comparison help us?�
There are German made Imperial Russian swords, so why not?
Now you say:
�P.S. all post ww II soviet daggers were made by by only one manufacturer in Zlatoust.� Which is it??? Are Soviet daggers only from Zlatoust, and this is a converted Russian Federation dagger?
You now ask:
�So what you are saying is that the pommel with the monogram is fake and otherwise the dagger is good. Did I understand you correctly?� I said:
�Having said all that: Late Soviet blades are past my cutoff point. But if someone says to me that Hackman in Finland made new production daggers for the post WW II Russian Navy I would be OK with that. It seems reasonable, and I have no information to the contrary. So my problem is not with what is below the pommel cap. But with the pommel cap itself. That is the result of an attempt to somehow make this an Imperial era dagger, which it is not�.
I don�t claim any expertise with late Soviet blades. The Soviet saber posted below is near my cutoff point. I know that the pommel is a fake, or an altered original. As for the rest of the dagger: Quite frankly I don�t know (or really care). If it has fake major components, as far as I'm concerned it�s just another fake. What exactly is the point you are trying to make, and does that answer your question?
Fred
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Prinz (aka "Frogprince"):
[QUOTE]Fred,
On April 19th you said: �Daggers were made by various makers, including private order daggers . Buy the way dagger's fittings might have been made by a third party. Yes, the monogram is different, I would say totally different, and they could not have been the same. So how this comparison help us?�
There are German made Imperial Russian swords, so why not?
Now you say: �P.S. all post ww II soviet daggers were made by by only one manufacturer in Zlatoust.�
Which is it??? Are Soviet daggers only from Zlatoust, and this is a converted Russian Federation dagger?
Fred,
To your amusement its BOTH. The only difference is that the FIRST statement is true for Imperial daggers (as it was the subject of our discussion). And the SECOND statement is true for post WW II soviet daggers. Isn't that obvious from my posts?
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Prinz (aka "Frogprince"):
As for the rest of the dagger: Quite frankly I don�t know (or really care). ......What exactly is the point you are trying to make, and does that answer your question?
Fred
After two pages of discussion on the subject, this statement you've made I like the most. And this answers all my questions.
At this point it does not make any sense to continue our discussion as being unproductive.
It was a pleasure, best regards.
So, everyone agrees that this dagger isn't the high point of any collection.
Interesting points made by all.
Lwov,
If I got it right, what you are saying in your own way is that you knew the dagger posted was a fake from the beginning. And you just wanted to know if anyone else could figure that out?
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but who was the one who made this statement?
quote:
"It looks like you do not have a clue what the monogram on the dagger means. Yet you are making such unappealable statements as to the originality of the dagger."
Is it just me, or am I sensing a factual disconnect here?
Take care, Fred
PS to Jim: An interesting discourse, with your observations/questions right on target. If nothing else it prompted me to become a little more educated with postwar manufactured blades. And if Lwov has some insight on more recent manufacturing operations at Zlatoust, I for one would be interested in learning more about them.
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Prinz (aka "Frogprince"):
If I got it right, what you are saying in your own way is that you knew the dagger posted was a fake from the beginning. And you just wanted to know if anyone else could figure that out?
Not quite.
First, I would consider this disrespectful as to others (unless, of course, I specifically disclose at the outset that I am not going to tell you my opinion, but you would have to figure out yourself).
And second, trust me, I have enough things to do other than creating puzzles for forum members here, and making them figure out why?
As to the subject dagger my position remains the same: good pictures and/or in hand inspection would be the only option here.
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Prinz (aka "Frogprince"):
And if Lwov has some insight on more recent manufacturing operations at Zlatoust, I for one would be interested in learning more about them.
Fred, it is as simple as that: As I said earlier all post WW II soviet daggers were made at Zlatoust by the same maker. The maker's mark on the ricasso changed three times because the factory changed its name.
here is the picture of these marks. the year underneath the mark is the year the dagger was made.
I wish I had bought those daggers with the 1946 era TM. For some reason I did not know the value would be based on production year, but the fact is, values are.
So, everyone has made their points. I appreciate all the input. and that everyone is playing nice.
Thank you
Lwov,
Thanks for the update on Zlatoust trademarks.
It�s quite a progression from the early days, when German armorers from Solingen were encouraged to practice their craft there. With the early French style engraved blade inscriptions, to the later stamped types, and now it seems etching?.
As for the dagger if �viking-rune� wants to make the effort, like you, I�m all for a good close look. Especially as regards the type of plastic used for the grip, and how the blade was made. Also of interest I think is the font, and type of trademark for a pre or very early 1917 Hackman blade
After looking into it some more, the dagger is actually supposed to be an Aviator�s (and some others) Dagger of 1914. Of course this dagger does not look like known period daggers, omitting some features. With the argument being made that different makers could make the dagger any way that they pleased, including variations of the Tsar�s monogram. With the lack of one of the features IMO, being potentially more troubling than some of the lack of attention to detail.
Since it was a (relatively) small group of potential private purchasers. In the time span from the chaos of WW I, to the abdication of the Tzar, that brings up some other issues. But I will leave it at that for the moment in anticipation of a possible closer look at the dagger in question.
Fred
Frogprince, I took pictures of the dagger taken apart. I just dont know how to size the jpegs to put them on the forum. Jim W posted the pictures for me. I dont know if the dagger is authentic ,a parts dagger or a fake as this is not my area of collecting. Thanks
viking-rune,
I can help in that area, and you should have a PM in your in-box. Having a full size image to work with really helps in getting a good look at how things are put together.
Thank You!!
Fred
Im tyring a resizing program.
more
pic 2
pic 3
pic 4
pic 5
viking-rune,
I really would like to thank you for the extra effort it took in putting these images together so we could get a better look at the dagger. Some guys will get scared and run away, and it�s a pleasure to see someone with the courage to see it through - for good or bad.
This is what I seem to be seeing. With the Caveat that I�ve been fooled before with preliminary images. And had to do a 180 degree turn in my opinion with later ones. So if you want to re-shoot any of these please be my guest, and I will try and indicate areas where I have a greater interest.
First image: It looks like the mouthpiece has two cuts for a blade/scabbard lock. Having sometimes seen especially with some later examples, cuts on both sides. So they could be assembled by factory workers either way. Or possibly wearers like with Soviet daggers, that have button locks versus a friction fit.
Second image: This has been the most interesting one so far. While I would need to see some side and other shots of the tang to be sure. It�s looking like one cut via the �blanking� process. With some �stock removal� thrown in to finish it up before threading. Also seen are the fairly extensive brass shims to keep the blade from wobbling.
Third image: The shims.
Forth image: The pommel cap that has generated so much discussion. It looks to me like a relatively light gauge brass sheet metal. With pock marks from brazing, that has been very noticeably deformed. From when somebody tried to force fit the pommel cap to the grip??
Fifth image: The lower grip collar, that but for the gaps seen, could have been the object of the force fitting. Unfortunately not enough of the grip itself is seen in the image(s) so just what that is remains open to speculation. If when you look at it �in hand�, and see that I missed something, or something that I got wrong please let me know.
I would like to have given a better �report card�. But as most know, I try to call them as I see them. And this is what I seem to be seeing in the images.
With my Best Regards,
Fred
Thanks Fred, like I said this is not my area of collecting and wanted an honest opinion of the dagger.I wouldnt want it any other way than what your honest thoughts are on the dagger. I want to thank you all the others for their help and information. This is a great forum and a wealth of information for the collector. I just got this dagger in the deal with the 3- WW2 German daggers which I do collect. Thank you Dail
Like most collectors, I have areas that I am more comfortable in, and areas where I seek the advice of specialists. Many of us over the years have acquired bad items in package deals along with the good, myself included. And like �viking-rune�, if it was just some item that was tossed in, sometimes it works out and sometimes not. Being just something that you have to deal with.
Update: To cut to the chase, I think that from the images posted most observers can see that this particular dagger has some really serious �issues�. After looking into it even more. It seems that this dagger is not a one of kind �orphan�. It has relatives for sale that are all bright and shinny and new looking. With, of course, the same pommel cap. The original (new manufacture) thicker unmarked blade, and two ring scabbard etc.
PS: Sometimes you just have to keep digging. And in some respects this thread reminds me of the seemingly never ending �H� dagger discussion which had such strong supporters. Although with that thread, I have no doubt that there were some very sincere believers. Whose long tenure in the collecting community I sincerely respect. Having given so much to it over many, many, years.
And a Special Thanks to Dail (viking-rune). Who brought this matter to light alerting the collector community. I guess that we�ll have to wait and see what happens now(?). FP
With the alleged �Hackman� dagger, it could be seen that the pommel cap was assembled to the grip at an angle, dropping down at the right side. And while not quite as noticeable. There are indications that the embossing/detailing of the metal strip, comprising the side walls of the pommel cap, is less than perfect.
With this example, it seems that the quality standards of whomever is making these is getting much worse. When they folded the strip to make the pommel cap it was very much off center (the right margin is much smaller than the left margin). And once folded that�s it. Because it�s not that easy with an embossed piece of metal to get it exactly back to where it was because of the stresses created in folding.
But faking/counterfeiting is all about profit. So instead of discarding it - they finished it off and assembled it to create one of the �no maker� daggers. I�m also afraid that whomever is making these might have borrowed some pages (besides fake wear/aging) from the �Secrets of Making Third Reich Fakes� book. Which is a topic for another day.
Regards to All, FP
Bringing this back up. There are a great many Imperial Russian daggers listed constantly on Ebay. I believe most are reproductions. This discussion serves as a good tutorial.
Thank you