Friends, opinions are interesting. Is it fake, or in 1940 such cooperation was possible?

It looks like a genuine piece by Klass but..........a piece of junk now and a piece of junk ten years from now.

Except that M7/14 is PD Luneschloss

Dave are you saying that M7/14 with that contract # makes this a bad dagger?

M7/14 is for metal and 1051/40 SS numbers make it a Klass see Whittmans book on page 162

M7/14 is for metal or edgeweapons ? and 1051/40 SS numbers make it a Klass see Whittmans book on page 162.Anyway it has the same value,right or wrong

The problem is the 7/14 is Lüneschloss, guys, and 1051 is Klaas, so sth. obviously doesn't match. Are there any "kissing cranes" on the tang? RZM Klaas blades/daggers are heavily faked in Czech, so IMHO it is a fake AGED blade.

That's right 777,

The 1051 mark is a unique case in my opinion. It is the only contract number found used by two known manufacturers. I have seen several examples of both and consider them genuine.

No one knows why although when this last came up years ago there was no shortage of guesses.

Mine was that Klass was not able to complete the contract and somehow it was transferred to PDL.

Dave

Yes it is logical. In East Europe make a lot of qualitative fakes. But must be a full idiot to make two different marks on one blade. It as a grammatical error in moto)

This makes sense, Dave. There is a chance the blade is good one then and absence or presence of "kissing cranes" doesn't mean anything. Gagarin, where does the blade in question come from, ground dug? What do you mean by "error in motto"?

Here, one more similar blade from my friend.

I mean, that put marks of two different makers on one blade is absurd as fake with mistake in writing moto (If that is fake)

Looks like that makermark is not so strange after all. Another rare common as dirt SS item bites the dust.I now think both of them are fake.Which is why an in hand ispection is needed before buying anything on line,or anywhere else for that matter

Thanks Dave for clarifying.
There is a difference between a contract # and a RZM maker code.
IMHO 1052/38 was split up between makers as well. I believe this was discussed a while ago.

The use of RZM code numbers by two different manufacturers is well known, especially among HJ Knife manufacturers. This does NOT mean the dagger is bad, but needs to be examined closely by hand. I tend to not label this as a reproduction or a mistake, but rather a period annomoly IMO.

Interesting, when we speak about Klaas-Lüneschloss connections the DRK hewers come to mind, as they were produced by Klaas and Lüneschloss only.

hi gents; might be a fake, might not. would have been nice if some one way back when , had intrest as we do now & tracked it. This is not the only SS mark like this. can't find the one like this but, ever one seems to think the code for mack & eicklenberg is 1241, but above it is m7/81 = tigerwerke. have yet to see tigerwerke listed as a maker anywhere. Plus on hitler youth daggers, there is at least 2 knives with mixed info. on the blades. they are transitionals with a logo of one comp. & rzm of another.
Better story ;comp. "a" has the contract but, nolonger makes that item due to war conditions (bayonets needed, ect.) , But comp."b" will make for comp."a".& they ARE an approved rzm maker. they mark it for "additional quality" concerns.
simular with early S.A. daggers,many of those early companies never made them. most didn't even assemble them.
the comp. across the street did; FOR a fee. same on etched dress bayonets, many offered them but, never made them, few did. I have a "haco" (S.A.) maker mark photo..BUT, has m7/33 below it. every one agrees that the comp. is only a distributor. But as a marking gose , this rzm is now associated with at least 3 diffrent comps. I'm not sure now ,that those "experts" are correct " sharing an rzm code". might be only 1 actual comp. making it. plus a lot of m7 codes to companies that appear never made anything dagger related. i know I confused this even more. jeff h.

Friends I think this blade made by Luneschloss.
Look at the photos, I have compared two motos . Luneschloss moto and mine . Both motos are the same !



The style of Klaas mark is very similar with mine too . There are differences, but it is admissible. (Different time of manufacture and entering of additions into mark.)



It seems to me, that it is example of manufacturing cooperation of SS daggers makers at last period 1940.
I think this blade is example of such cooperation , Klaas has bought Luneschloss details for SS daggers .
Probably at that point of time Luneschloss has finished manufacture SS daggers, but some details haven't been used. If it so, this one of the latest blade made for SS daggers .