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