Having a discussion on another forum regarding a '36 pattern with gau stamped crossguard. I don't collect SS, never have, probably never will. That being said, i've never come accross an example as such, not in person, nor in my various readings (though none of SS blades).

What's the story with gau marked 36's? Why are the found almost exclusively on Type-1s? Are they ever found on M33's at all? What purpose did the gau mark serve? Is it plausable that they gau stamped crossguards were left over stock that manfucturers decided to incorporate into 36 pattern daggers for effiency?

Your answer is appreciated both by myself and another collector who own's a gau stamped M-36.

Thank you in advance friends,
Tom

My guess is either a parts dagger or the factory was using up spare parts. After all, these daggers were not destined for the collector market.

Most collectors, and dealers alike, feel that these Gau marked crossguards are fine.
However, there is also a very large group of people that thinks otherwise and say that they are simply "part daggers".
Whatever the opinions, if I had the opportunity to buy a non-Gau marked versus a Gau marked crossguard, I would take the one without the Gau marked and I feel that 99% of us would.
Why buy a controversial piece when you can buy a textbook original for the same price ?

One thing I've also noticed, every Gau marked SS Chained dagger that I've seen, ALWAYS had extremelly poor fittings ( crossguard to grip ), for this reason alone, I would pass my turn but that's just my opinion.

This subject has been kicked around for years. As far as I know, no definitive answer has come forth. I agree with Pat, generally. However, I feel the Gau-marked examples are likely period. Those so marked generally have characteristics in common. I would not pass on an M36 because of Gau marks alone. As noted, they are mostly, if not exclusively, found on daggers with "Type I" chains. The same holds true for the crossguards being marked "PA" internally and the original finish being blued ("anodized"). It may be some Gau leader or other big wig wanted them with Gau marks, for reasons of his own. The marks tend to be on early M36 examples. I don't have the statistics, but I think only certain Gau marks appear on them. I know of no presumedly authentic M33 SS dagger with Gau marks.

I have vet purchased daggers in this configuration over the years as have many other people. Since this is not “textbook” I would have to buy a dagger in this configuration for less since it would be a harder sale. If I were not worried about resale I would be very happy having a nice SS dagger with Gau marked cross guards in my collection. I have seen 33 and 36 models that were direct vet purchases.
Best Wishes,
Bob

Pat,
It has been years but the ones I have owned or seen and were definitely vet purchase had acceptable fit. If I were to see a SS dagger with a Gau mark and a poor fit I would call it a parts dagger.
See you at the Max!
Bob

Thank you gentlmen. A collector had posted a gau marked M36 on another forum, and my first thought was parts piece. Though after some research, what i've found suggests that these infact were period...though as mentioned it seems there is some debate on the matter.

Why though? Could it be attributed to large stocks of SA/NSKK crossguards left over since SA production was slowing down by 1936?? Would quality control for SS pieces even allow this to happen?

As i'm not an SS collector, this was the first time i've ever encountered one.

Anyway, thank you all for getting back on the subject.

Tom

Hi !

Several years ago I´ve got this dagger from the hands of the son of an departed veteran of the Schutzstaffel.
The dagger was well greased ...

The dagger was hidden in a Wehrmacht-Heer metal-canister for coffee in the cellar of the veteran´s house and was found while breaking up the household.

I know, this is not a text-book dagger, but it is, IMO, a legit-one !

I really also can´t say, what´s the reason why, there´re Gau-marks on the lower crossguard of M36´s actually ...

There´re some presumptions.
One of them is, that remainders of SA-daggers were used with the M36.

I talked with some experienced collector´s and all of them said to me, respectively the M36 there´s almost nothing impossible, what can also be possible ...

Even Tom Wittman e-mailed me, my dagger is OK !

Together with my M36 an M33 was found in the coffee-canister ! ! !


I bought from the son of the veteran also some books, a pistol holster, a map-case and some propaganda-material.

There also was the veterans-saber of WWI, his officer´s boots and some other stuff, but I was out of money that day ...

But, I was able to buy two nice SS-dagger´s, (the condition´s not really fine, but what shall´s ...), for a price, I could not say no !

You must know, I´m not collecting 3rd-Reich dagger´s but this two were a bargain !


Rgds.,

R.

P.S.:
The Gau-mark of my M36: "Westmark"

2

3

4

5

6

Most of the Type I's with a Gau stamp appear to be marked "Sa".

I'm not going to get into a discussion on the merits of Gau marked crossguards on SS Daggers, but if one looks closely at the daggers in this thread, you will notice how the curve of the guard does not match the curve of the top scabbard fitting. That's say it all for me.

I dug mine out. I haven't handled it in a while. The Gau marking is "Ns." The fit of the grip to the lower guard is near perfect, except for a small gap on one side. The lower guard fits the the throat perfectly, as far as the contour goes. The blade shoulders perfectly fit the lower guard. Not a hint of a gap when held up to the light. Additionally, the age toning of both guards appears to be identical. Unless you want to question the Gau mark in general terms, this dagger is perfectly "normal."

I'm with Ron on this and as I've said on my previous post, I'm yet to see a perfect fit on a Gau marked SS Chained dagger.

They all may be real but the craftmanship leaves to be much desire on these Gau marked SS.

Perhaps, the fact that they were using existing parts coming from ex-Rohm crossguards may explain the poor fitting, who knows ?

I would add my dagger came from the vet's widow. It had been stored in her attic for years. I would also note a severely damaged nickel-silver crossguard is something almost unheard of. So, replacing an unmarked guard with a Gau-marked one is highly unlikely. Plus, there are too many M36's with Gau-marked guards to indicate replacement due to damage. It would seem these are "legitimate" variations from the period, or someone made "parts" daggers after the war. Take your pick, but, based on most that I have seen, I think they are authentic and from the period. I have never seen one of these where other parts were questionable, but they could exist. The ones observed are perfectly "textbook," except for the Gau-marks, and they tend to have manufacturing traits in common. Perhaps the well-documented high demand for M36's when they were authorized came into play somehow, with production trying to keep up with demand. If the "TypeI's" are indeed of the earliest production, more than a few questions could be raised as to why some are Gau-marked.

I can't tell you how many times a veteran came into one of my motel buys with a bunch of daggers and had scabbards switched or grips switched or mis-matched pieces and remembered that during the war he was messing with his daggers and other guys had their daggers out and they aren't sure if pieces got exchanged.
So, when the vet has a piece you still can't be sure as to what occurred during its life in his possession.
JMO,
Ron

Every once in a very great while, you will see a Type I with its original matching heavily nickel plated malleable iron crossguards. The same type of finish as the chains. The problem is that the cast iron crossguard sockets (for technical reasons) only got a relatively thin (insufficient) layer of plating inside the socket itself. Which allowed moisture to penetrate, and rusting to start, eventually creeping out of the socket as it spread.

While it’s not a really good color match, nickel silver of course does not rust. And the readily available nickel silver Gau marked crossguards, taken from SA daggers, were sacrificed to be put on the much rarer and more expensive SS daggers. (While he is no longer on the forum, there was a very skilled individual who I understand was fairly good at taking off the “offending” Gau marks.) My point being that Gau marked or not, nickel silver is highly suspect, if a dagger has a mixture of nickel silver and nickel plated iron/steel fittings. With the exception of course, for those transitional (in materials) daggers where everything was factory plated to match. FP

Many moons ago, when I got this dagger, they were more questionable than they are now. Out of curiosity, I tried some unmarked PA lower guards, the type this dagger has, and some Gau-marked guards from the same maker. None even came close to a proper fit. The guard that came on it is a perfect fit. As a "plus" the dagger came with a "teardrop" hanger. I am not the least bit concerned about the originality of the dagger and wouldn't dream of having the Gau mark removed. It's the same old story, if such bothers you, don't buy. I wouldn't hesitate to buy another, if the Gau mark was the only "issue." Try swapping guards on any early political dagger and the odds are you won't get a satisfactory fit.

There are far too many Gau marked M36 SS daggers that come from reliable sources to doubt their authenticity. Regardless of the reasons postulated.

They are not parts daggers. They are not mismatched daggers. They are legitimate variations of the M36 SS dagger made during the Third Reich.

It's time to put this time worn falsehood to rest. The time to accept them as "text book" is long overdue.

And everyone knows it but some "experts" will not publicly accept the fact. One has to ask the question: "Why not?".

Bernie: If this were all true and we know they continued to produce M33 SS Daggers, where are all the M33 Daggers with SA marked crossguards? I don't ever recall seeing any of these M33s.
You really don't think the manufactures would only use SA Gau marked crossguards on M36 Daggers do you?

There are many unanswered questions with respect to TR daggers. This is simply one more to add to the pile.

The answer is nobody knows. Bernie makes excellent points and I agree with him. If someone owns one or more M36's with unmarked guards, he can diminish the value of daggers with marked guards by claiming they are "parts" daggers. This makes his dagger(s) more valuable, in theory. His sell, the marked daggers do not. I would like to know how many dealers or collectors would pass on an M36 just because the guard is Gau-marked. I can just hear at a "motel buy" or show: "Sorry, sir, I'm not interested in your M36 SS dagger because the lower guard is Gau-marked." Yeah, right! It would likely go: "Gee, I'd like to buy your dagger, but the markings on the lower guard are incorrect. Sad to say, that devalues it quite a bit. I can give you $200 for it." Afterward, it really does become a parts dagger if the lower guard is changed to an unmarked one, or the Gau mark is removed. So, who's kidding whom?

Ever try and sell a Gau marked SS M36. You can, but not for top dollar and usually not above the price you can get for the parts.
Its a hard sell period.
Too many collectors say buy the item not the story and when you have to make reasonable explanations for the mark, it creates some doubt in the average collector's mind. The same is with the M36 with an Eickhorn code 941. They exist, but most collectors won't pay the big bucks for one because when they go to sell it, its the same explanation process.
This is why textbook daggers in super condition are ALWAYS the easy sell and bring the most money.
I'm not making any contentions that stories with the pieces are wrong, I am just telling you the facts from a dealer's position. When you go outside the lines, the facts make the situation blurry and harder.

With all due respects Ron, if well known dealers like yourself accepted them as "text book", it would go a long way towards legitimizing them - as they should be.

On another forum in the very recent past. Two virtually new (still with paper tags) SA daggers surfaced with both showing some signs of rust and lifting at the interface of the wood and the nickel plated iron crossguards. My point here being that the rust was relatively minimal with a never issued dagger. Much less a somewhat "salty" or well used dagger. (Having in the very dim past seen boxes of discarded rusty iron crossguards myself at shows.) If somebody had installed recycled Gau marked crossguards on those two daggers I think that it’s fair to say that a number of folks would have been very critical of such a combination.

But with the Type I chained SS daggers of the same proximate vintage. And only some of the daggers - not all of them - this seems to be OK.

With using the "so many seen that way" argument not IMO being a valid way to try and legitimatize something that would not be accepted with a relatively common dagger. Much less a special order only SS dagger (but not all, only some of them).

PS: If guys have the NS/Gau marked daggers and enjoy them that's fine with me. But, with all due to everyone involved in the discussion, to make them the "textbook" example. Instead of the original heavy nickel plated malleable iron type IMO crosses the line. FP

IMHO these are absolutely fine and they ARE in the textbook, have a good read of Wittmann's reference. Sure there are some who don't like them. So what? That does not make them less real.
As far as value, that is based on market forces.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but the only maker I am aware of that used iron guards was Helbig. To my knowledge, they did not make M36 daggers. The only guard materials I'm familiar with on M36 daggers are solid nickel-silver and plated zinc-based metal. Yes, I'm very happy with my Ns Gau-marked M36 and have no doubt of its authenticity and originality. I suppose dealers think in terms of "moving the merchandise," while collectors concentrate on other aspects. I, and apparently more than a few others, accept the Gau-marked M36 examples as being "correct," authentic and a "legitimate" period variant. I disagree with Fred that there is no significance in there being substantial numbers of Gau-marked examples. To me, that speaks volumes. Again, why on earth would someone sit down and replace guards on such a number of daggers? And what would he do with the removed unmarked guards? Put them on other M36's? It's nonsensical. There are other considerations to ponder, such as the provenance of the individual daggers. These Gau-marked examples are of early manufacture, making the likelihood they are "parts" daggers, assembled postwar, highly improbable. I'm sure the naysayers will never be convinced otherwise, but these daggers are recognized by a significant portion of the collecting community as authentic, and there is nothing to indicate otherwise.

I'm still looking for the M33 Dagger from the 35 to 37 period (when there MIGHT have been left over early SA Gau Marked Crossguards) with the Gau markings so as to use up such existing stock.
WE KNOW that Eickhorn used left over Rohm SS Blades by factory grinding them and marking them with RZM and still see the early double oval Eickhorn TM (I have bought these from vets and there are pictures of this type in Wittmann's SS work), so where are the Gau marked crossguards on this type dagger???
Then, on the Gau marked M36 Daggers, why do we see the plated scabbard fittings with the nickel silver Gau marked guards on a lot of these daggers?
Too many questions, too few answers.
JMO,

Paul, Like I said last night, if guys want to have and enjoy the NS/Gau marked Type I daggers that is fine with me. And if they want to buy and sell them that is between them and their customers, which is also their prerogative.

I also have Tom’s book and overall like it, although it does have some bad information and questionable examples. And I still don’t understand the rationale for giving the (so called) Type I daggers that label, but its locked in place now.

That said, if the book is the ultimate unquestionable “textbook” on SS daggers. Why is it that Tom made no mention at all of the Type “X” chain sets (although he does in fact have one in the book I believe on page 152.)??

Grumpy, Nickel plated iron crossguards are seen with Eickhorn and Max Weyersberg political daggers as well, and no doubt some others if we did a head count. It wasn’t something they wanted to do, but was forced on makers by the conservation of at first copper for military purposes. And with cast iron you could use the same molds and hand finishing techniques (although a lot harder to do and more costly/labor intensive), before they ultimately went to the much more cost effective die casting and zinc. (And as supplies of nickel itself became harder to find and more costly, zinc was more tolerant to corrosion with the thinner plating that they used with later production daggers - especially as compared to cast iron). Regards to All, Fred

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Weinand:
Bernie: If this were all true and we know they continued to produce M33 SS Daggers, where are all the M33 Daggers with SA marked crossguards? I don't ever recall seeing any of these M33s.

So far, the Gau marked M36 SS daggers are blamed on vets and their families mismatching scabbards and/or unscrupulous people changing crossguards.

If that is the case, why indeed do we not find M33 daggers with Gau marked crossguards. Did vets and their families only do this to M36 daggers?

And why don't we find NPEA daggers with Gau marked crossguards? Surely the vets and their families would have done the same to them if this was, in fact, the case.

quote:

You really don't think the manufactures would only use SA Gau marked crossguards on M36 Daggers do you?

Why not? Dagger manufacturers were business men. Party affiliations were cultivated to secure contracts which in turn made them money. They would have done the same if the communists had come to power.

And if they were not produced at the factory this way, how do explain that this mixing of parts and scabbards by vets and their families is relegated only to M36 SS daggers?

To me the answer is simple: it was a manufacturing process at the factory. They were produced this way during the Third Reich.

Otherwise how do you explain the absence of same on M33 and NPEA daggers?

I repeat: On the example I own, the grip perfectly fits the lower guard, the blade shoulders perfectly fit the lower guard and the lower guard and throat perfectly match. What are the odds of such if the lower guard was changed? I don't doubt scabbards get exchanged for one reason or another. But, intentionally changing lower crossguards makes no sense, especially for vets or their families. And even if it did, there would be serious and blatantly noticeable match-up problems. Additionally, if these wholesale changes took place, where were they finding all the lower guards internally marked "PA?"

M33 daggers with gau marks exist. See page 27 of Tom Wittmann's SS book.

Dave

I’m really not looking to unnecessarily get into a big discussion 'furball', and I'm addressing specifically the "Type I" chained SS daggers. If anyone is looking for a reason why. This is what the nickel plated iron crossguards look like on an otherwise mint M1933 SA dagger, where the internal corrosion and pitting (and eating away) of the crossguards has started.

From some of the examples I have seen, it can get a lot worse.

PS: You can add R. Herder to the list. FP

Fred... you keep obsessing about "nickel plated iron crossguards". If you knew anything about Type I SS chained daggers you would know that the earliest pieces had solid nickel hilt fittings... top crossguard, bottom crossguard and pommel nut. The Type I's with a Gau mark had solid nickel fittings, not nickel plated iron crossguards. Here's an early Type I with solid nickel hilt fittings.

Says who? That is what this whole discussion is about - Gau marks. Clearly there was a change in manufacturer's because the “Type I” daggers not only used a new set of dies. The ‘SS Kulturzeichen’ was stamped at the time of manufacture, not later like all of the others.

Also, if the dagger you posted above is the same as the one posted before, it not only has a crossguard fit that seems a bit off. It has some fairly heavily rusted links. And I think could very easily be a prime candidate for replacing rusted crossguards - if it damaged the links to the extent I am seeing in the image first posted.

And something else that caught my attention, was that in the first image mentioned, the crossguard seems to have been polished to match the upper mount. And in the second it looks like it is reacquiring the faded natural appearance of a copper based NS alloy. With my point being that it's actually a lot easier to nickel plate nickel silver than steel or iron. So why not plate to match like some other transitional (in materials) daggers? Regards, Fred

Fred, Iron based crossguards IMHO are a late variant and are very rarely seen. In my limited experience they are always on later vintage dagger NOT M33's.
Perhaps you know better.
The SA example you show above I strongly suspect is a RZM dagger from the brightness of the fittings and the tag. Indeed these often show corrosion. This is most often caused from the acid in the wood reacting with the fittings. The other cause is intergranular corrosion from impurities,(lead content) in the zinc.
The only corrosion I've ever seen on a nickel silver crossguard is from that green stuff, (vertigis, I think it's called), sorry I can't spell.
Regardless the gau stamped crossguards we are talking about are nickel silver not iron based. I know they are fine on a chained SS. I've bought 'em from Vet's families and so have lots of others. Are they original and exactly put together that way from the factory?- IMHO Yes.
Do they sell for less than unmarked crossguards- Yes. Why? Because some have cast doubt on them and collectors are paranoid about such things. As I said earlier price is a function of the market. I do not believe that they are the result of some grand consiracy by people to put one over on collectors.
They do however repesent an opportunity for some to pick up a M36 at a bargain price.

Type I's almost always have plated steel chains. I have seen one that appeared to be original that had a non-magnetic chain that seemed to be cast from zinc-based metal. Could well have been a clever earlier fake. But, when I see or handle a "Type I" M36, I fully expect the chain to be magnetic. However, the crossguards on these earlier daggers are nickel-silver. Never ever have I seen one or seen one advertised with guards made of anything else. As to the polishing noted by Fred, I agree such appears evident, but polishing on daggers and scabbards is not uncommon, for a variety of reasons. Usually, it signifies the owner wants it to look clean and shiney. To clean or not to clean - the age-old question and difference of opinions. The "standard" early "Type I" M36, among other traits, will have a magnetic chain, nickel-silver guards and a blued or painted scabbard.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Aucti....aspx?Item=174100415

In my opinion, without a doubt, there were M36 SS Chain Daggers manufactured and sold with SA Gau marked crossguards, during the 3rd Reich. Like the "Jacobs" motto daggers, and the maker-marked "33's" found in a chained scabbard, we can not definitively explain how these pieces came to be, but there is plenty of proof that they were made during the period. We have heard of the testimony that was shown near the beginning of this topic, we've seen the info that was stated in Witty's bible, and we know that even pioneers like Tom Johnson have inspected, discovered and sold these type of Chain SS daggers. Several years ago a member of GDC from Germany, was present during an excavation of a building in one of the local cities. In one of the buried partial buildings that he show on this site, was found an M36 Chain Dagger. He posted a photo of the dagger held by a construction workers at the dig site, which showed the Gau marked crossguard of a buried SS Chain, that had been entombed since the end of the war. Do any of you early members remember this thread which is long since gone ?

quote:

Originally posted by lakesidetrader:
Do they sell for less than unmarked crossguards- Yes. Why? Because some have cast doubt on them and collectors are paranoid about such things.

To those who own Gau marked M36 SS daggers, take heart. They will soon be equal in worth to so-called "text book" daggers as those who have wrongly cast doubt on them will eventually fade from the scene.

Paul, I don’t consider it a “grand conspiracy” myself. But more of an opportunistic kind of thing. With an otherwise more or less OK scabbard and chain set - but with a really ugly rusted set of dagger fittings. (The boxes of discarded rusty crossguards I described were almost all of the “political type”, presumably from a mixed group of same vintage daggers.)

As for the example I posted, it’s iron oxide (rust) that has crept out of the socket of an otherwise mint specimen. I have some images of other daggers that show the rusting better (but need to first get permission to use them). And corroded zinc itself is a dark gray, and not magnetic. Interestingly, verdigris itself can etch, but is not nearly as destructive as rust. Which is why they can find bronze artifacts relatively intact, where iron/steel typically has a much, much shorter life span in the same environment. Regards, Fred

PS: With that kind of high level backing, I take it that the dealers, owners, and fans of the “Hühnlein” daggers can also expect redemption as “textbook” daggers in the not too distant future? FP

Yes Bernie, I HAVE seen NPEA Daggers with SA Gau marked crossguards and even SA Daggers in NPEA Scabbads, all returned by veterans and have even bought them in that state.
Do I think the Germans made them this way: NO. They were simply left over parts assembled at the end of the war for US soldiers as souvineers. Period wartime production.

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Weinand:
They were simply left over parts assembled at the end of the war for US soldiers as souvineers. Period wartime production.

As time goes by, you appear to be more and more in the minority with that opinion Ron...

And are you saying they weren't made for Canadian and British soldiers? You seem to forget that they were there too.

quote:

PS: With that kind of high level backing, I take it that the dealers, owners, and fans of the “Hühnlein” daggers can also expect redemption as “textbook” daggers in the not too distant future? FP

Fred, unfortunately sarcasm accomplishes nothing in this discussion.

Bernie, You are right. It was my frustration showing when one individual or another is being quoted presumably as the only source of “true” information - when we know that is not always the case. My apologies. Regards, Fred

I've even seen some SA daggers with Roman numerals marked on their crossguards, doubt if they were original though ..... even if acquired through vets but that's another story.

Just for the fun of it, how about if we make a poll on the Gau marked subject.

Great Discussion: We all learn by open-mindedness (!)

IMO, the referenced SS Daggers (with Gau marked Nickel-Silver Crossguard) are a concrete illustration of the means & procedures which some TR Dagger Makers used as prudent businessmen, in a specific time-frame [1933-1942].

I believe that it all goes back to "WHY" that 'Transitional' SS - SA & Other Daggers, were manufactured in the 1st place. WHY Transitionals in the 1st place?

My take on it the subject is the following:
(1) ...there was a 1935 published edict / notice that effective a stated date, no more Strategic Metals could be used by manufacturers. Nickel-Silver (of which the early Crossguards were made) was one of those 'prohibited' metals which were listed. [I have forgotten the exact date off-hand, but it's posted it on the "TeNo Homebase" thread.]
(2) ...Dagger Manufacturers who had a large supply of Nickel-Silver crossguards on hand, could [and Did] continue to use them - until the supply was used up. [i.e. Note the finding of Transitional marked Blades, but with Nickel-Silver Crossguards. It was a matter of supply on hand - & the demand for additional Dagger types, those which used this shaped Crossguard - SS - SA - NSKK (? perhaps NPEA, but will defer to Ron).]
(3) ...We see the same thing taking place for Visor Eagles & Mützenkranz - in that they were Nickel-Silver until mid 1935 & then made of an alternate metal [usu. Aluminum] after that date.
(4) ...However, as with the Crossguards, manufacturers also had a supply of Nickel-Silver Eagles & Mützenkranz, which they continued to sell. [I have documentation of this taking place for the TeNo, and I 'believe' that it is also true for other branches.]
(5) ...Back to the "Gau Marked Nickel-Silver Crossguard" - another partial explanation is that Daggers were sent to the manufacturer for repairs & upgrading. This aspect is documented in TW's books & others - when blades were repaired, trade marks were repaired (& in a few documented cased - replaced!), etc. At the same time, it is not unreasonable to postulate that Crossguards were also replaced. Thus a supply of potential 'previously-used' [as in the Gau Marked Nickel-Silver SS] crossguards were on hand in the bins at the Manufacturer. They could [& apparently were] used for the 'new' Daggers, as the demand for these Daggers increased.
(6) ...Also, when we look at photos of, and examples from, the parts & supply rooms of Solingen Dagger Makers after May 8, 1945, it is crystal clear that not much was thrown away! Parts were stockpiled.

Thus in these areas [after the prohibition on the use of Strategic metals], there was a 'mix & match' on the part of the various Manufacturers. As good businessmen, they wanted to use up their supply of parts (be it Nickel-Silver Crossguards or Eagles / Mützenkranz) before making (or having made for them) additional items, using a Non Strategic metal [i.e. plated crossguards - or - Aluminum Eagles / Mützenkranz).

It all seems to 'make some sense' when we look at it all from a documented time-line; a historical perspective; and 'verified examples' of the items [be they Crossguards or Eagles / Mützenkranz]. ...Txs, ...Dave/dblmed

quote:

Originally posted by Fred Prinz (aka "Frogprince"):
Bernie, You are right. It was my frustration showing when one individual or another is being quoted presumably as the only source of “true” information - when we know that is not always the case. My apologies. Regards, Fred

Fred, apology accepted. Oh, and I know the feeling.

Why is it O K for the Germans to use used parts on daggers,but they whould never do it on a Luger (Parts with different numbers).It is like buying a new PORSCHE with a used steering wheel on it,is it really that big of deal.

One last comment on this topic from me: We have yet to establish WHERE the Gau mark was applied.
I, for one, have never believed that the Gau mark was applied by the manufacturer. I have always felt that the application of the Gau mark was at the Gau level during the initial issuing of the SA Daggers from the area, not from the manufacturer. I don't believe the manufacturer would have shipped to each member and the Gau was responsible for distribution.
Next, if this was not the case, why do we see different locations of the mark on the crossguard for some Gaus??
Ho and Bo come to mind right off and why would the manufacturer, if he was the source of application, vary the loctation??
Until we can establish WHERE this Gau marking was applied, the theory about unused stock will remain an unanswered question IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Weinand:
I, for one, have never believed that the Gau mark was applied by the manufacturer.

Ron, no one is disagreeing with you on that. What I and an ever increasing number of seasoned collectors are saying is that somehow, in the war time manufacturing process, Gau stamped crossguards were used on M36 SS daggers. Why and how will forever remain a mystery unless period documentation is found.

But IMHO to suggest that Gau stamped M36 SS daggers are not factory produced is far fetched to say the least.

Paul, Not a mint or near mint example, here is a more worn dagger where it looks like no attempt has been made to halt and/or remove the corrosion. To the left it looks like there could be some exfoliation binding the grip in place (1). Whereas at the top, what looks like very heavy plating which has been undercut by corrosion (2). Judging by its appearance. If the rust was removed all the way down to bare metal, we would see I think some fairly deep pitting.

Regarding Ron’s point about when the Gau marks would have been applied, Tom Wittmann was also of the opinion that they were not factory, but applied in (Gau) distribution centers. With his (Tom’s) opinion being that the Gau marked crossguards instead were removed and recycled from ex-SA Röhm daggers.

Which brings up another issue which is that of fitting. Returned (or pre-stamped leftover/surplus finished stock) would have been fitted to match the original NS scabbard mouth pieces. But this is supposedly in a factory setting, and has been mentioned, getting parts from different daggers to fit is supposed to be almost impossible. So they picked through boxes of brand new pre-stamped parts (or used ones) looking for one to fit? (Now it’s true that a reasonably adept individual can sometimes re-contour a nickel silver crossguard bottom, and with some luck, get it to fit another mouthpiece without being too obvious. Which is not something that you can do with plated fittings.)

So which is it? New parts pre-stamped for specific SA Gau’s, that were in storage waiting for just the right Gau to place an order? Or used returned Röhm daggers being recycled with the original Gau marks left intact?

Regards to all, Fred

Thanks Fred for that picture but I'm not exactly sure of what your point is?
Do I agree that iron based crossguards exist? Yes I'm sure of it. Do they oxidize and corrode? Yes they would.
Have people attempted to clean them Yes.
Again I'm not sure what the point is. We are talking about early NS crossguards being recyled onto M36 daggers.
As far as Tom's theory, it makes sense to me. I happen to be of the train of thought that the gau stamp was applied at the gau level not the factory.
As far as the fitting of the crossguards that seems to be a red herring to me. They would have grabbed one pushed it onto the tang and press fit the crossguard in place using a fixture/press same as was always done with all early political daggers.

quote:

Thanks Fred for that picture but I'm not exactly sure of what your point is?

Paul, My apologies if I wasn’t clear. I think that everyone is on board with the fact that dagger makers had to discontinue using nickel silver (copper and nickel) in making daggers (swords etc.). And eventually the M 1936 (and other) daggers were made using steel and zinc in lieu of nickel silver. But there was an intermediate step where malleable iron was used (using existing NS manufacturing equipment), before zinc became the material of choice.

The (misnamed IMO) “Type I’s” are also an intermediate variation of the M 1936 daggers, after the Type “X” and “Type II” (in nickel silver) were no longer being made. Having a heavier plating than the “Type II” (in steel) with zinc crossguards.

quote:

As far as the fitting of the crossguards that seems to be a red herring to me. They would have grabbed one pushed it onto the tang and press fit the crossguard in place using a fixture/press same as was always done with early political daggers.

If I remember correctly, you have expertise in die casting. With die casting part # 1 - looks and fits just like die cast part # 1000. But die casting is not foundry work, and the sand cast NS (or iron) parts out of the mold look like the inside of the socket (very granular in appearance) with a fairly large sprue attached. Which has to be cut away. And the part then ground smooth and shaped to fit, and polished, etc. etc.

My point being that back then hand/selective fitting was needed. Which is also why we see some of the early daggers having assembly numbers, just like many of the Solingen makers did for their early military items. Regards, Fred

No apologies required
I have no problem with a iron based crossguard being seen on a chained SS. I just didn't know why that was brought into the discission. I thought we were talking about early NS crossguards being recyled onto M36 daggers.

Quote:
"My point being that back then hand/selective fitting was needed. Which is also why we see some of the early daggers having assembly numbers, just like Solingen makers did for their military items."

Perfect, you and I are on the same page!! There would have been no extra steps required to recycle a crossguard. The gau stamped crossguards could have been put in a box with the rest of them and followed the same basic production process.

quote:

Perfect, you and I are on the same page!! There would have been no extra steps required to recycle a crossguard. The gau stamped crossguards could have been put in a box with the rest of them and followed the same basic production process.

EXCEPT for the fact that once stock (material) is removed, it’s no longer there available for adjusting the fit.

As has been mentioned time and time again, finding parts that fit is supposed to be almost impossible task to accomplish. And you can’t grind down the nickel plated mouthpiece to fit without having to clean it up and re-plate it. So what are your options if there is not enough material in a crossguard to get it to fit properly?

My point being that in a manufacturing operation a certain amount of wastage can usually be expected because of one reason or another. But with a bunch of used, originally hand fitted parts, what do you think your rejection rate might be? And once they finished, why didn't they plate them to cover up any of the small imperfections in the surface finish that might have remained - to match the exceptional quality of the chain sets? Regards. Fred

The mystery continues, I suppose. No one is going to convince another of opposite thinking until period documentation or some other irrefutable source is brought forth. I remain on the side believing the Gau-marked M36's are authentic. I also own two "Type II" daggers, so I am not "beating the drum" for Gau-marked examples for personal reasons. I simply think the preponderance of evidence and common sense point to Gau-marked M36's being authentic. If they were "parts daggers," somebody got awfully lucky to find so many "Type I" scabbards, early grips, blades and crossguards to assemble them after the war ("Rats! We could only find Gau-marked lower guards!"). The only argument the "anti's" have in the face of numerous vet-acquired Gau-marked examples is they must be "parts daggers." Sorry, folks, it just doesn't wash, in view of the numbers, the quality, fit and finish, age, etc. If it weren't for the Gau-markings, few, if any, of these daggers would raise serious questions as to authenticity.

Fred you and I really need to get together at a show and "tip a few" together I think it would make for a lively conversation. I mean that sincerely
I will explain to you how I see these things fit. The caster of the crossguards removed the sprues, cleaned and polished the NS crossguards and delivered to the dagger assembler. The assembly guys inserted the tang into the orifice and press fit the crossguard to the blade butt using a fixture and a press. BTW this is why all these parts daggers never fit right at the tang. Hope they're not listening
The grip was then adjusted to fit to the crossguard. The crossguard was not fit to the grip. There is lots of evidence that grips were fit. There is little evidence that the crossguards were machined, filed, sanded or whatever at the assembly stage. Intuitively what would you rather do? file down a nickel crossguard or sand off a few milimeters from a grip? If you don't agree, that's ok with me, I think we are going off on a tangent.
I believe I'm in the majority when I say these are factory issued with gau stamped crossguards. If you don't agree, that's fine, we've disagreed before.
As I've said to my wife in exasperation, "Just cause you can talk faster and better than me doesn't mean you're right!"

Question:

Hypothetically, for arguments sake, let's assume the daggers were not manufactured "war time"- would then the argument be made that these were "put together" by the manufacturer out of stocks of existing recycled crossguards, for the sole intention of peddling the pieces as souvs. to occupation forces?

Theoretically that could account for so many "vet finds" of these particular daggers. That being said, it's also presupposes that the manufacturer had stocks of "type-1" M36 pattern dagger parts laying around to assemble these en masse using the recycled crossguards, which were gau stamped in their respective districts and ultimately returned to the manufacturer for reuse, etc.?

Interesting.

Of course hypothetically this could have happened. Pre1945 parts were assembled into daggers for returning Vets. Shoot I even think Atwood assembled some daggers after the war to sell to collectors. This happened to every kind of dagger.
I just think with the material shortages that manufacturers faced they would have used up what parts they had on-hand.
These were frugal times.
Consider bayonets, we see some bayonets that were reworked 2 and 3 times and reissued. The Dress Police Bayo is a prime example.

Are some gau stamped M36's parts daggers-Yes
Are some non-gau stamped M36's parts daggers- of course there are.
All I'm saying is that some were issued gau stamped in the period.
Every collector still has to evaluate every piece on it's own merit.

I agree that the gau marks (and the I,II,III SS marks) were applied somewhere other than the factory. The manufacturers would have done a much neater job . Instead we see bad positioning, tilted strikes, double strikes, etc.

Dave

http://www.johnsonreferenceboo...DAGGERS/SS/24528.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Grumpy:
http://www.johnsonreferenceboo...DAGGERS/SS/24528.htm

And it's not even a Type I... LOL!

I’m in agreement that they were stamped someplace other than at the factories. When you also look at the head count per Gau, and some of the personalities in charge (with more ‘horsepower’ than others) it makes sense that not marking them ahead of time allowed more flexibility at delivery time.

As to the probable sequence of operations with sand casting, the top crossguard looks like it was drilled. And the bottom hole precast with maybe a little file work (if needed) for some, but mostly not. And of course I can’t speak for all makers all the time. The grip socket extensions would have been pre-machined, mostly likely a tad oversize as you suggest because with wood it’s less difficult to adjust. But that’s the easy part. It’s the fit of the crossguard to the mouthpiece where (IMO) some talent is needed.

Speaking for myself, I have a problem with the dagger just posted, and it’s this:

“Black Ebony grip shows light surface wear with minor chipping to the upper obverse and lower reverse grip adjacent to crossguard,”

In my experience wood as it ages shrinks and pulls away. And chipping away like that seen with this dagger, comes from when the grip is removed, and oftentimes too much force is applied putting it back. (Which is not uncommon when trying to force fit a different set of crossguards or grip.)

But everyone has their own standards of what they are comfortable with. Regards to all, Fred

Hi!
As I mentioned earlier myself and others I know who are extremely dependable have vet purchased these over the years. I just returned from visiting a friend who is one of the most knowledgeable people around on Third Reich daggers. We spoke about these and in his 50 or more years of collecting he has found the ones that would be considered “text book” were all early nickel silver with painted scabbard examples. Furthermore, the ones that would be “text book” were all internally marked PA.
Lastly, are they easy to sell? No, at this time they are near impossible to sell! However, they are legitimate. With the “old timers” this is the only configuration that would be considered a Third Reich era piece. The rest could be considered parts daggers.
Best Wishes,
Bob

Please Note: This is NOT focused on the Gau marked daggers.

Bob,
I think that “back in the day” before the Internet, geography was another factor that doesn't get much consideration. I know to an absolute certainty that an operation that probably wasn’t too far from you (by West Coast standards*) was in operation making fakes (altered originals) for the Ohio Valley/East Coast collector market. I think that they eventually ran out of material to alter, or possibly the market was saturated? * (Within I'm guessing 200 miles or so.)

Even though a number of the items were created, I have yet to actually see one on the West Coast. (Of course now we no longer have the really big shows like we did years ago. But with 5000 tables and some fairly knowledgeable folks you would think that something would have turned up.)

That said, I would appreciate some input: I was told a very long time ago by some of the West Coast “old timers”, that at one time an unknown number of ‘no maker’ M 1936 blades were swapped out of the M 1936 daggers because owners thought they were fakes(?). And trademarked blades were substituted. And back then you could also sometimes find ‘no maker’ blades with the M 1933 daggers. Of course eventually it was determined that it was a MAJOR mistake, and there was a mad scramble to reverse the process.

Did something like that happen on the East Coast, or was it just here?
Regards, Fred

Bob, Please permit me to make a clarification. I should have said: "Did something like that ever happen on the East Coast" ...... ? - which might be something that your friend remembers. And it would have been over at least 25 years ago. Best Regards, Fred

quote:

Originally posted by Fred Prinz (aka "Frogprince")I was told a very long time ago by some of the West Coast “old timers”, that at one time an unknown number of ‘no maker’ M 1936 blades were swapped out of the M 1936 daggers because owners thought they were fakes(?). And trademarked blades were substituted. And back then you could also sometimes find ‘no maker’ blades with the M 1933 daggers. Of course eventually it was determined that it was a MAJOR mistake, and there was a mad scramble to reverse the process. Fred

Sounds like the same thing is happening now for Gau marked SS daggers.

Bernie, I see your point and believe it or not have no problem with the idea of leftover surplus nickel silver parts being used with daggers that are transitional (in terms of materials). Or even recycled ones, if they weren’t particularly worried about a possibly higher rejection rate.

The problem is my background. Not something I do now, I have some education and experience in general manufacturing, with maybe a little Aerospace tossed into the mix. So I can fairly easily visualize what it took to make them, and have some idea of relative costs. And from my perspective: After (re) fitting them if they wanted to use recycled crossguards. I think that they would have made at least an attempt to remove the Gau marks as a part of a recycling process (not unlike what they did with regrinding the blades), and then nickel plated them. Or at least just nickel plated them to match. End of discussion.

In physical terms it would have meant hanging them on some hooks and dipping them in a plating tank. Which had to be done anyway with the rest of the nickel plated components, and would have cost almost nothing extra as most of the intermediate steps for iron/steel were not needed.

With the other side of my brain saying that we know that various makers used nickel plated iron crossguards on political (and other) daggers. But that they had a fatal flaw, and very few of the political type are seem anywhere in pristine condition. With even new/unissued condition daggers showing signs of internal corrosion, which has crept out onto the exterior visible portions. With the example I last posted not the worst I have seen. And if they swapped blades at random “back in the day” - I think that some crossguards (and grips) would have been right alongside them.

I can understand your frustration. And would like to be in agreement. As I said before, if guys want to have and enjoy the NS/Gau marked Type I daggers that is fine with me. But for myself, I just can’t get the numbers to add up to where I am comfortable with the NS/Gau marked daggers. Best Regards, Fred

Fred,

Just haphazardly putting mixmatched crossguards onto grips and blades by anyone postwar would not get the near perfect fit that you see on Gau marked daggers. I have always believed that new grips and blades were hand fitted to existing Gau marked crossguards at the factory. It was a matter of economics.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Bernie,

Crossguards are crossguards, and I think that we are pretty much on the same page there for blades. The fit of crossguards to scabbard mouthpieces - that I have to think a little more about. Some of the 'perfect fit' daggers I’ve seen show some evidence of forced fitting. And damage like the “Gau” example from a couple of entries back. Here is the front, and I can’t say that I am particularly thrilled about what looks like a fairly large chunk of grip missing from the top upper left side as well as the back.

Not for me, I’m sure that somebody is going to like it. And so I think that we can all respectfully have our own like and dislikes.

With My Best Regards, Fred

quote:

The problem is my background. Not something I do now, I have some education and experience in general manufacturing, with maybe a little Aerospace tossed into the mix. So I can fairly easily visualize what it took to make them, and have some idea of relative costs. And from my perspective: After (re) fitting them if they wanted to use recycled crossguards. I think that they would have made at least an attempt to remove the Gau marks as a part of a recycling process (not unlike what they did with regrinding the blades), and then nickel plated them. Or at least just nickel plated them to match. End of discussion.

In physical terms it would have meant hanging them on some hooks and dipping them in a plating tank. Which had to be done anyway with the rest of the nickel plated components, and would have cost almost nothing extra as most of the intermediate steps for iron/steel were not needed.

Again Fred. They didn't need to be refit. I've tried very hard to explain that. Tell me exactly what you think had to be refit? Crossguards were not fit, grips were made to mate them. Now you've moved to talking about the scabbard throat piece radius matching. Again Crossguards were not fit to throats, throat radii were made to match the guard.
What's with the plating? NS guards were not plated. If anything a quick rub makes these bright again, especialy after just a couple years. The patina we see is 75 yr patina.
Again you are bringing up iron based crossguards. I still fail to see how and or why that comes into this discussion. They are rare and 95% of later crossguards are zinc based. IMHO 99% of makers went from NS directly to zinc.

Paul, you and I don't usually disagree, but the fit of the nickel crossguard in early daggers was a hand fitting and adjustment process due to different tolerances of the grips, blade tangs and the scabbard throats.
I have seen hundreds of SAs where the crossguard just cannot even be run down the tang to the blade.
In no way do these early nickel guards match the tolerances of the later, plated guards. When you compare manufactures, you can readily see the differences and even in the same manufacturer from lot to lot.
Also, MOST of the large manufacturers used different crossguard suppliers from time to time.
Joe Pankowski studied SA Daggers by manufacturer and listed the different crossguard markings from the thousands of original daggers that have passed through his hands over the 50 years he has been collecting and dealing and it was an eye opening wealth of information.
I used much of his research in my latest work on NPEA Daggers. In "Waffenleite Presenting NPEA Daggers of the Third Reich" I was able to determine who made the daggers for Burgsmuller (contractor) based on the markings on the tangs and scabbard parts and CROSSGUARDS that were directly attributable to manufacturers (some times only one manufacturer used only a marking that directly identified them).
So, was there a generic company crossguard: NO. So were they interchangeable easily: NO.
IF you study the different manufacturers carefully by each different dagger model, you can determine much unique information.
The only drawback is that most collectors and dealers will NEVER come in contact with enough examples from direct sources to be sure to make a valid conclusion as to who did what.
IT is dealers like Joe who elected to share his valuable information with me that made my research and conclusions possible.
IT AIN'T EASY.
JMO,
Ron Weinand

What Ron said: - page 2.

Paul, Let me see if I can use another kind of approach, and if you disagree with something we can go from there.

Clearly the guys who made the “Type I” scabbards were not amateurs, and they were well equipped. In a OEM factory, normally you have all kinds of tooling to speed the process, and hopefully get a product that does not require a lot of extra hand work. Filling in the gaps where you don't have tooling are your well trained workers.

quote:

Now you've moved to talking about the scabbard throat piece radius matching. Again Crossguards were not fit to throats, throat radii were made to match the guard.

How many makers of the Röhm daggers were there? Maybe 10? Did they have CNC, or did they make things “old school”? Did they all share molds (if they had them), tooling etc.? I doubt it. My point? Lets assume for the sake of discussion: That parts from one half of the makers (or a major maker) exactly matches or is otherwise the same, or close enough. And that maybe half of the lower crossguards in that box of “Gau” marked parts could use jig “A”. And the other half is going into the trash - unless they can be reworked to fit jig “A”. We don’t want to do that so we make jig “B”. And then we find out that 10 % of that amount fit jig “B”. So we make jig “C’. And then we find out that only 10 % fit jig “C”. And so on. Keeping in mind that 50% from the start could be a ‘tad’ optimistic.

The ball is in your court. Regards, Fred

PS: For die cast zinc crossguards from a single supplier, you probably would only need jig "Zn". Because die cast crossguard # 1 is going to be the same as die cast crossguard # 1000. Unless, that is, you needed some 'clones' for any additional workstations. Fred

Ron you and Joe have without doubt taught me much and provided invaluble assistance through your writing and verbal help at shows. For that I am thankful.
I agree with you that these sand cast early NS crossguards were not of the tolerances of the die cast zinc guards. I can not say that I've "seen hundreds of SA's where the crossguards can not be run down the tang". I don't disect each one I handle and I have handled a few. I'm not saying they all come together perfectly when you slip them on. I'm saying they were slid on and press fit into place with a fixture. Take a second and do a hysterectomy on the next eary sa you get and look at the witness mark on the face of the crossguard from the butt of the blade. That's not filed or fit that way, it's pressed. BTW ask me about this at the MAX and I'll share something real cool. BTW think about armies. That's how they were fit too, and that's why the "vigin crossguards" are so tight on there.
I do know that there were a few makers of early crossguards and I never said that they were "easily interchangeable" what I said is that they could go through the "same basic process" as other guards coming in. Yes, the grip has to be fit to the guard, yes, throat radii fit as well. What I'm saying is that crossguards were not as normal practice IMHO machined/filed or whatever at the assembly plants.
If you don't agree with me. I can live with that.

Fred you're way better at this debating stuff than me. Shoot man, I'm not good a writing and I'm well over my quota the last couple days.

What Ron said,
"I'm still looking for the M33 Dagger from the 35 to 37 period (when there MIGHT have been left over early SA Gau Marked Crossguards) with the Gau markings so as to use up such existing stock.
WE KNOW that Eickhorn used left over Rohm SS Blades by factory grinding them and marking them with RZM and still see the early double oval Eickhorn TM (I have bought these from vets and there are pictures of this type in Wittmann's SS work), so where are the Gau marked crossguards on this type dagger???"

That is a real good question and I do not know the answer to it. So what? I don't understand my wife either and trust me she is still authentic!!
Actually I do know what happened: All the crossguards were laying in a crate kicking around the Eickhorn Factory for months and months and one day an order came in for chained SS daggers. They had all the parts to put the order together but inconvieniently the British happened to do a raid the day before and the crossguard order is sitting at the bottom of the Rhine. So Heinz the production foreman came down and told the assemblers to use up the old crossguards. They whined and moaned about, "How everything around here is going to hell" and "it's not like it was in the old days". But Heinz got his way and the order was filled.

Yes, I'm being a bit sarcastic but Fred you worked in industry just like me for years and stuff like this happens.

As far as fitting the throat, I wasn't there but I have worked with tooling engineers designing tooling and the "old school" preCNC guys were geniuses. My guess is they had a flexible press at that work station not jigs.

We all know that they reused Rohm blades. Why on earth would they not reuse the crossguards as well?

............ “I'm well over my quota the last couple days”.

Paul, Don’t you think that my wife has made a comment or two, or three, or ......... ?

“Actually I do know what happened: All the crossguards were laying in a crate kicking around the Eickhorn Factory for months and months ............. Fred you worked in industry just like me for years and stuff like this happens.”

In a general sense sometimes it has, which is why we see the 'Stern Gewehers' when they had their backs to a wall in a war, or some later cousins like some of the the Luger pistols, when the economy was struggling and some other things. But to manufacture a whole series of brand new items with leftover parts of varying quality and dimensions? Everything else that we know about especially the scabbards, was that they were first quality. Why use the relatively high cost chained SS daggers as your test vehicle to get rid of unwanted surplus parts?? Why not with some of the lower grade SA, or NSKK daggers? Why not sell them to a small maker who did not mind fooling around to get them to fit? What do you tell some SS officer when he sees what looks like recycled SA parts on the new dagger he just purchased? Not a good choice from my perspective.

"My guess is they had a flexible press at that work station not jigs."

The fact is that we don’t know what kind of specific tooling they had, and are making projections. But we do know this: Once that crossguard is perfectly fitted to the mouthpiece and attached, the mouthpiece assembly was going to get nickel plated. So they sent the mouthpiece off to get plated, and tossed the crossguard back into the box? Of course not. They did not serialize them. And to make sure nothing went astray (including the top) they were probably wired together to stay together. Which is very likely how they kept all (or at least the unnumbered) NS and some of the other ones together. And did they separate them at the electroplating stage to save 10 cents worth of nickel? And simultaneously try and keep track of what matched what? What do you think?

"We all know that they reused Rohm blades. Why on earth would they not reuse the crossguards as well?"

Bernie, I think that they could have if they wanted to. But I’m having a problem finding a reasonable (IMO) scenario to match what we can physically see, and how it would all come together, without also nickel plating the crossguards.

Best Regards to All, Fred

quote:

Originally posted by Fred Prinz (aka "Frogprince") Bernie, I think that they could have if they wanted to. But I’m having a problem finding a reasonable (IMO) scenario to match what we can physically see, and how it would all come together, without also nickel plating the crossguards.

Best Regards to All, Fred

Fred, I'm not sure I get your point.

Fred,
Firstly, being educated as a physician I have a huge background in the sciences and in the scientific method. I need a worthy source for me to base my decisions on as Ron has cited above.
Do I believe all of the SS daggers with the gau stamped cross guards, no. Some of them are parts daggers. The early ones with painted scabbard and silver fittings and cross guards internally marked “PA”. This type has been found across the country from vet sources and when in this configuration the do have a perfect fit, at least what are in the normal tolerances for a dagger of this period without the gau stamp.
If you are looking for an academic or well documented explanation I doubt you will ever find it. I am sure if you or any one else were to ask TW or Gailen they will probably concur with my statement.
Best Wishes,
Bob

Fred it seems everytime I explain how things were done you come up with a new reason why it could not be done. Now we're all the way down to the scabbard throat and you continue to assume the order of operations and manufacturing methods.

Your mind is made up and I know from experience: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

The fact remains that these were and continue to come out of the wood work from Vet sources. Again do you think that these have been planted by another grand consiracy from all over the world only alowing them to trickle out over the last 60 years? All of it secretly designed years and years ago...
Many believe they are original. I just happen to believe too.

Paul,

That you and others are comfortable with these daggers is fine with me. I’m sure that Tom Johnson, who described in great detail the WW II veteran’s estate acquired  dagger posted on this thread, is also comfortable believing that it has never been apart. 

I’m not being sarcastic when I say this.  But I think that you can probably remember another fairly recent thread.  Where the issue of another "veteran" (estate sale) acquired dagger was examined at very great length. Only one of a group of such daggers. If you take another look, I think that you will see where I don’t always rely on what people were told, or believe. But instead had to rely on my experience and instincts. Versus accepting what I was being told was correct at face value (by more than a few people).  That they still have their opinions is also fine with me. And I can respect them, and the valuable service they have given to the collecting community.  But that doesn't mean that I have to agree with them, and nothing has ever been brought forward to dispute my eventual findings. And I am not saying that they are equal, as one group (IMO) was clearly modified to deceive.

There have been threads where my original opinion was wrong. And (as near as I can remember) I have publicly acknowledged when 'game changer' evidence has been presented. Learning something new, and incorporating it into the knowledge/tools I use to look at things. 

I’ve been collecting a fairly broad spectrum of German militaria for a long time.  And I have seen a lot of good items, but I’ve also seen a lot of fakes and postwar altered items (especially when compared to some other areas where I have an interest).  And while I can  respect the opinions and testimonies of others.  I’m going to have to continue following my own internal compass. And respectfully disagree until some 'game changer' actual proof of the matter to the contrary comes forward.

With my Best Regards to All,  Fred

At the end of the day i know which type i
would prefer.
Regards
John

I can live with that my friend.
We'll agree to disagree.
Good Hunting.
Paul

Right or wrong collectors dont generally like them, so they are less collectable. Each to their own on it, but I would probably not buy one.

Funny thing with this hobby is you cant put everything in a box, so it probably is best to look at these on a piece by piece basis.

I’ve got lots and lots of various and sundry files that I really need to properly catalogue. And get off my desktop, because it's waaay out of control. I was also all finished and done with this thread. When I saw a folder that was hiding behind an old one that I was putting in the trash.

Most unfortunately, there was no notation of where this came from. But here goes: 1st image - a long distance shot of a "Type I".

2 nd image - What looks like a well fitted, plated bottom crossguard. With seemingly commensurate age. And plating lifting from both the upper locket, and the crossguard.

3rd image - The bottom crossguard obverse side.

Comments anyone? Fred

Comments? Yes... what's your point? I fail to see what this has to do with Gau marked nickel crossguards. If you can be CONCISE, and tell us in a sentence or two without authoring a treatise no one understands, I would appreciate it.

I am also baffled, what is the relevance of this dagger to the thread?
Thanks!
Bob

Dont mean to bud in here , but i pick one up a few years back that was never cared for and only distroyed and defaced just about everywhere on the dagger and it had cross guards marked as well and i for one believe it was always that way and never changed or messed with and i think it was never apart untill i took it apart and i had to use WD-40 through the holes for the ruins button in order to get the tang loose. here's the cross guard fit to scabbard and it looks good to me.

inside cross guards

My apologies, I've been out for the evening. The relevance is that it's a "Type I". As far as I can tell at the moment the crossguards are not iron. But they are plated. And it does not look like it has been 'tarted up'. Fred

Does anyone have a reason (or reasons). That they can elaborate upon, why the example I posted above could not be considered a ‘proof of concept’ example of the M 1936 “Type I” SS dagger? Fred

And here is one of two “Type I” iron crossguard examples that I had in the back of my mind, but could not find when the discussion was more active. At the moment I have no idea of where the other one is, which as I recall was a much better example.

In the images, it looks like rust has been fairly active inside the crossguard socket causing damage there. And at one end of the lower crossguard (opposite the motto side) it looks like it was in contact with some kind of moisture source. Which not only caused some surface rust, but bubbling underneath the plating. And what looks like thinning of the overall plating in that location.

1st image - From left to right: the skull link, the lower crossguard, and the motto side of the blade.

2nd image - A closeup of the lower crossguard (and the opposite side). Showing rust patches and the bubbling. Because of the condition of the piece, while I think that it is interesting, it's not something that I would necessarily put into the "game changer" category. Fred

Hi Fred, again I'm not really understanding what you are trying to prove or where you are going with this.
Does this have anything to do with the topic we are discussing, "Gau stamped M36 daggers"?
I truly do not follow. If you wanna talk about "game changing" iron based crossguards or "proof of concept" crossguards, that's cool. Suggest a new topic be started as it is confusing for someone trying to follow. It's hard for me to follow and I've been part of this. I don't even know what game you are changing, or what concept you are trying to prove. Suggest to spell it out clearly and present your argument.

Paul, We crossed paths in our posts, and my original comment, which I pulled out to assess your comments and adjust accordingly:

“For anyone who might not have been sure of whether or not this is really a “Type I”. Here is the “SS Kulturzeichen”. As I said before, the dagger does not look like it has been “tarted up”. Which for so many others can sometimes make it more difficult to judge what is actually being looked at. This dagger also having a type of patina that is seen with nickel plating (a clue: It’s not bright and shinny, and might not be particularly tenacious).

Also, in my effort to be ‘concise’, did I leave out something? Is everyone clear as to what I was referring to as a “Proof of Concept” ie: with plated crossguards?”

My reply: It’s not a new topic. Simply put, “Proof of Concept” in some industries means that the idea (like an experimental aircraft) works. And while some others have made known their own (unfavorable) views on “Gau” marked daggers. I have posted a dagger (or possibly two) which clearly illustrates one of my main points. Which is that nickel plated crossguards were used in manufacturing the Type I daggers. Nickel plating which seems to have had some problems. And in a number of images that I looked at over the weekend. I saw M 1936 daggers with ill fitted mouthpieces/crossguards, crossguards/grips, undersized grips, chipped grips, and various other issues which for me translates to a parts piece, and/or otherwise fooled around with. Fred

Fred, In looking at the examples that you have posted and comparing them to the Gau marked examples shown at the beginning of this topic, there is marked difference in years that these pieces are constructed. Your photos are of M36 daggers that I would place in the 1939 and later made pieces. I base this on a time line that I have constructed to compare dagger characteristics and metals seen used in later produced M36 daggers, compared to those made during the period of 1936 -1938. Among these traits are but not limited to scabbard fittings, types of metal, chain construction etc. So showing a late M36 with typical war time fittings, in my mind really doesn't play into the M36 Gau marked daggers with typical otherwise early made chain daggers. My opinion is that the Gau mark was not a mistake on these early SS chains, but put there for a specific purpose of which we don't know the reasoning for as of yet.

To quote Charlie Brown, "I can't stand it."

JR, The worn/rusted condition iron crossguard piece could be debatable, but we know that iron was in use with some 1938 dated political daggers (as well as 1939). And I don't recall at the moment if it can be pushed back further, with circa 1938 I think also impacting some swords.

We also know that across the board (with all sorts of Solingen blades) that nickel plating got progressively thinner, until it disappeared altogether with some very late items. Also, that the Type II’” daggers typically have much thinner nickel plating than the Type I’s. And that “Gau” marked Type II veteran's piece that was posted. Makes no sense to me other than having replaced parts, which I think is confirmed by the chipped away grip.

So I don’t think that we are on the same page as regards dating. With my recollection being that I did a projected timeline when I wrote the Type “X” M 1936 chain link dagger thread. Which I think was as follows:

1st) The Type “X” (the rarest) which I considered as probably a 'trials' batch of nickel silver mounted daggers.

2nd) The “Type II in nickel silver".

3rd) The “Type I" in steel with heavy nickel plating. Less common, and possibly an interim maker.

4th) The “Type II in steel" with progressively thinner nickel plating. I haven't seen anything since to give me enough of a reason to change that sequence. Regards. Fred

Fred, I don't want to take away from the topic at hand regarding the Gau marked pieces, but the type III or X guards are not really that rare. For years going back collectors have heaped these in to the Type II dagger category. I've seen many daggers being listed as Type II when in fact they are not.

With the early Type I scabbard, we see a time line that these can be matched with maker marked blades and showing early constructed heavy plated chains.

But once again, I would hate to see the topic confused by incerting later plated crossguards on war time M36 daggers and inferring that nickel Gau crossgurds were switched to make these pieces more pretty to the collecting community. That simply isn't true and as I stated one of these early M36 chains was pulled from the walls of a building uncovered in Germany. If the switching of ugly plated crossgurds have reached the wall of an unearthed building in Germay, the conspiricy must be global.

JR,  From what I have observed, the Type “X” is not seen nearly as often as the Type II in NS.  And likewise, the Type II in steel is fairly common as compared to the Type I in steel.  Something that I think most collectors would agree with, so it’s really not an issue. Just something to give an idea as to how many of each type are in general circulation - as compared to the total population of M 1936 daggers. BTW: With what you have seen, do you have an estimate as to the relative numbers of each?

I’m also not sure just where you are going with the heavily plated chains comment.  To me they seem to be relatively comparable in thickness.  With that measurement itself very often being hard to determine because of polishing (and sometimes over polishing). Likewise, earlier I mentioned that I was told it was not uncommon “back in the day” - with trademarked blades being swapped out for unmarked ones.  Only one of the “tutorials” I was given by well experienced older collectors. Guys who were not after my money, but trying to help a new collector avoid some of the pitfalls that they had encountered themselves in collecting*.   

And I really don’t want to bring up another discussion regarding another series of daggers (with various locations mentioned).  But my point here being that I don’t always give a lot of credibility to stories.  With for example: One dagger in this thread having a cut down grip (IMO), and another having replaced parts.  

And can I ask you this?  What is so unbelievable with that first example of a Type I that I posted above? The very well fitted one, with the heavy plating that on the crossguard has gone bad.  Is it because of the fact that it’s plated, not raw metal?

* And that does not mean that some original owner might not have swapped out a blade. But like guns with mismatched magazines, a mismatch is still a mismatch. And transitionals (in manufacturing) have to be judged on their merits, with the advantage going to the earliest production types.

Regards, Fred

Fred, This is the Type I chain that I have most often found with early nickel silver M36 daggers, maker marked blade Type I's, and it appears Gau nickel silver daggers sporting Type I chains. There is no mistaking the plating on these early Type I dagger when a collector sees them in hand. The liks are very thick, the plating is brilliant, and the construction is early, and these early Type I's are beautiful to examine. I have consider this Type I chain as being the 1st ones produced in this configuration.

Later Type I chains that are war time construction, have thinner links, plating that is many times flaked, and chains that were not even plated at all.

The examples in a Type I configuration that I've seen posted, and examined first hand that have been noted with nickel silver crossguards marked with the SA GAU, are match with this very early plated Type I chain.

You don't see a later plated chained M36, with all late characteristics, matched to nickel silver guards. But all of the examples that I can remember seeing in a Type I configuration, have these early plated link construction. I have seen the Gau marked crossguards with a Type II all nickel M36 dagger, as I remember.

The plating on these first Type I's is much more brilliant than I can depict with my camera lense in these photos.

JR, No offense, but I think that you may be confusing brightness with something else. I’m tempted to go into a more technical discussion, but I can already hear the groans of those who don’t like them.

But I can say this: The apparent definition from the stamping die seems somewhat less on yours which would (or should) be later production, not earlier. (Dies break down, they don’t get better.) And the plating on yours looks to me like it’s a little thinner, with maybe a little bit of flaking.

As for unplated “war time” Type I’s, I can’t say that I have seen them. Although I have seen Type I chains with all of their plating gone (and at least one re-nickel). Best Regards, Fred

A little closer look (unfortunately it loses a little focus/sharpness). Fred

On page 27 of Witty's bible is a trademarked M33 dagger with the rare maker of the Puma firm. I believe that this is only 1 of 2 known M33 pieces ever seen discover with this firms logo on an SS dagger. The dagger is matched to an early Type II scabbard. While this dagger does not belong to Denny any more, it is owned by a member of this site. This dagger is very important to this discussion, and I can only ask that the member post this piece in detail for us to further understand and discuss this fascinating topic.

That one is mine JR. Next time I take it out of the bank, I'll shoot some pictures.

My guess is either a parts dagger or the factory was using up spare parts. how do you think?

*******************************************


I think you better read the code of conduct

Hi all,

Im silently trying to understand all opinions + knowledge in this thread, which is QUITE a lot actually, if you go below the easy-looking surface? I remember that a part of this discussion appeared on another forum where I tried to understand it, the process on how plated crossguards corrode? I think I was even helped with understanding that better by someone taking a big part in the talks here. If I may, for my simple understanding, can I ask a few questions? I hope Im not WAY out of line ...

Regarding the Gruppemark/Gau-stamp, part 1;
how'd they remove the Gau-stamp from recycled Röhmdaggerparts? If they ever did that? Sometimes the stamps are rather deep? Not always ofcourse but it would take a total reshape/rework of the lower guard. Wouldnt that just leave ugly too thin too small too shallow uneven dented unattractive parts to work with? Wouldnt upper guards need an adjustmenttreatment to get them matched with the lipo'ed + botoxed lower guard too? And wouldnt it be WAY too labor-intense? I dont know about metalworks, how easy these guards are reworked? Or how easily grips can be matched to crossguards that are off-shape/uneven/thin on the outside? I guess, they could? But, even so, IF the metal was SO scarse, then, why not recycle the metal for war-use, instead of using the guard again?

Regarding the Gruppemark/Gau-stamp, part 2;
someone speaks of a poll? And, YES, that WOULD be interesting Just to see actually WHICH Gruppemarks are used on the type of daggers in question? I wouldnt know much about SS cutlery, so, I wont say anything on that type-dept. But, I read that Gruppe "Sa" is seen much, and a dagger for sale @ Johnson Reference Books as posted in here has "Nm"? What other stamps are there? Or, what maker marks do those crossguards have on the inside, even? Maybe THAT result helps to understand better why/how/where it happened? I wouldnt know how, but, you guys would perhaps? Anyway, just wondering.

Back to reading,
Karin-Renate

Hello Karin !!

That the ‘Gau’ markings can be removed, one way or another, is not in question. Shallow marks themselves would not really be a problem, with many of what we see now being the deeper ones. With the adverse “trade off” of course being as I think you indicate the possibility of a gouge where the ‘Gau” mark used to be was located - with a readily visible blemish of what was supposed to be an untouched dagger being a very undesirable result.

The actual amount of work (with a few simple tools) is minimal - unless of course it resulted in a gouge. And as I think I mentioned earlier. The name of one individual comes to mind (and possibly a few others) with a reputation of being fairly good at removing the marks.

As for recycling, the retrofitting of used parts etc. that was mostly covered earlier. With maybe the exception of one suggested aspect of fitting the mouthpiece parts together (all different) - prior to the nickel plating.

Best Regards, Fred

It would be interesting to know how many people who would never own a Gau marked SS dagger have a "text book" specimen in their collection that had the Gau mark removed by polishing.

It seems there is an abundance of "evidence" to have established the authenticity of the Gau-marked M36's. I see nothing but speculation holding the opposite view. Unfortunately, such establishes misinformation in the collecting community and raises doubt in the minds of collectors and would-be purchasers of these daggers. Remember the member(s)here who took every opportunity to promote the "serrated tail" Himmler daggers, adamantly and repeatingly stating the "smooth tail" variety is a postwar reproduction? Absolute nonsense! The same thing seems to be going on with the Gau-marked M36's. Perhaps the intentions are the best and, of course, everyone is entitled to his opinion, but to taint a period variation without substantial proof does a disservice.

Hi Fred, or Mister Prinz

Its a great pleasure running into you again Sir Thank you for the reply! I must've overlooked the recycling of metal of parts, earlier on in the topic, I'll go check. May I ask who is/was known to be good at removing Gau-marks? Was that Atwood perhaps? Or, am I naming a name of someone whos name cannot be named? Atwood used to break daggers apart to make "better" 1s from the best parts? Or do you refer to some wellknown busted forger who reworked stuff to sell way expensive?



Hi Grumpy, yes, I think everyone should agree there? Speculation is filling in blanks with just 1 opinion based on, what, hunges? Feelings? Dislike for someone thinking the opposite? But, I guess, a LOT of money is involved, and envy, or jealousy, so, people with unmarked daggers don't want marked dagger owners to have good daggers too? I dunno, I haven't been very long in this collector-scene still, but, it sometimes is WAY more ruthless, vindictive, hateful and based on subjective opinions then kids at school?

Sincerely,
Karin-Renate

Hi Karin, for someone who says they have not been in the collector-scene very long,, your knowledge is not that of a novice. Give yourself some credit,, your knowledge and information is valuable, and helpful to the community. Best Larry

Hi Larry,

I'm taking that as a whoppingly big compliment, actually, thanks! I mean, not long, as in compared to (most of) you! Some of you even brought back stuff yourselves from the war? My great grandfather is as close as I'll ever be to the actual thing ... And, most of you have been collecting for years + years + years! Anyway, thanks Larry

Sincerely,
Karin-Renate

There is a nice transitional SS Dagger on ebay right now and it to has gau stamped lower crossguards. and it all looks original to me, check it out ebay item # 120597774730 sorry i dont know how to just post the link for you.

Hello Again Karin!!
Jim Atwood had long since passed away, and the one name (as well as another indirectly) were in a later time frame. And as was described earlier in motel buys, and items I’ve seen myself from veterans, they did all sorts of things that might not make sense now. But at the time must have seemed to be a good idea to them - using whatever resources they had available. Best Regards, Fred

Hi Fred!

The "motelbusiness", YES, I think I remember reading about that somewhere else? Gonna find that discussion! Thank you once again for hints ... Im beginning to see "naming conventions"? Makes it eazier to understand some more inside talks

Sincerely,
Karin-Renate

This came direct from a vets estate. Must be bad?

more

All fits like a glove!

photos

Again, a type I with Gau marks. And this one from a vet's estate. And a beauty at that.

If this is a parts piece, I'll eat it.

Would anyone be 100% happy with this type of grip fit ? C'mon !

It wouldn't be for my collection, whether it be vet purchased or not !

Patrice I know what you are saying but they did come like this as well, at the end of the day they are simply a collection of parts put together. I bought a 36 from a surviving elderly SS guy who has owned it since the war. Absolutely mint and untouched, lovely patina, full burnishing and never been apart and the grip fit was far worse than this. Clearly the parts pieces share this characteristic but I think you need to look at the whole piece and make an opinion on them. As collectors its nice to tick all the boxes but anything hand made from parts has a degree of variation in it.

Personally I would not want a Gau marked 36 in my collection and would not buy one, but maybe if I bought one that looked and felt right from a vet or surviving SS guy it would change my views on it.

Look at the shocking fit on this 36 that came from the surviving SS guy. The top left and bottom right fits are awful! but the dagger is right.

Very very honest piece from original owner but what a terrible grip fit.

Mongobongo,

Very nice Chained SS and I love that patina but your grip fit is not all that bad either, it is actually much better than the one pictured here, to me there is no comparaison at all.

A natural product, not all woods/grips are completely equal. And because wood can change dimensionally with age through naturally occurring shrinkage, exposure to the elements, wear/use etc. it is a factor that has to be taken into account - and looked at it in the context of the piece.

With one of the earlier ‘veteran’ Gau marked pieces the grip had been cut down (shortened) about 2 to 3 mm which was quite noticeable in the images (and was not something that was normally done in the factories that made them). With others, the contact areas between the crossguards and grip on some have been blended in to try and conceal chipping fractures.

As was pointed out the fit here is off, and what I seem to be seeing could be just a optical illusion. But with this dagger there is something in an area that would not be affected by shrinkage that seems that it may be out of place. Normally the contact areas of the grip have a convex curve that matches the crossguard. From the image here it seems that the center portion of the grip is possibly flattened - leaving a pair of wedge shaped overhangs at either end?? FP

It is very normal for any wooden grip to shrink over time but doubt if any grip, would actually expand as shown in the picture by the red arrows.
Pretty obvious to me that this grip has been temptered with and again, not conclusive of any proof on the infamous Gau marked SS Chained dagger.

The least amount of shrinkage that I have noticed on EM33 daggers were on Bokers.

Hi all, dear Fred, Sirs?

If I may? Could the "overhang" be from the filedaway/ground-off Gruppe Markierung? I dont see 1 on the fotos, but maybe the stamp is on the other side? In that case, sorry for interrupting ...

Sincerely,
Karin-Renate

With items that came directly from veteran's, or from their estates (etc.) there is sometimes a presumption that the veteran never fooled around or did anything with his souvenirs. Sometimes that is true, which is why you see on the forums from time to time, the admonition from other collectors to leave an item alone and not clean it. But with other items it can be fairly obvious that someone at some point has done something. And if it truly never left the GI’s possession, the most logical choice IMO has to be the original owner.

Maybe it’s just the lighting. But in looking at the pictures again of this latest example, it appears to me that the upper scabbard mount to the left does not have the silver-white look of nickel plating as much as it does the silver-gray of polished steel. Perhaps some additional images will help correct this presumption - but this is what I seem to be seeing. If that is the case, possibly it was done at the same time that the grip was modified(?).

For comparison purposes here is a “Type I” cloverleaf showing the plating in four different states. Omitting the very highly polished steel that is seen with some of these daggers - that can sometimes be confused with plating (especially in some of the images with different lighting values).

This image I think should also give most observers who did not have one, an idea as to the actual thickness of the plating which was an earlier topic.

* As plated (in the recesses).
* As plated with (relatively) minimal polishing.
* Corrosion (rust) - mostly traces, which is what caused the nickel plating to lift/peel away.
* Bare steel with the rust removed.

FP

Karin, I understand your reasoning but don't think that it applies here. It's a little difficult to see, but on the backside of the crossguard there is what I believe is a "Westmark" SA Gau marking. Best Regards, Fred

Dear Fred, hi!

Thanks! I had a bit of a hunge something like that was on, but, I didnt see the Wm? And, well, I was too eager to know ... Sorry for the interruption!

Sincerely,
Karin-Renate

Pat, Not all SS dagger grips have a Boker fit. Heck even SA daggers have a wide range of fits. So the answer to the question is Yes I would be very happy. I have owned about 10 M36 SS daggers, 90 SA daggers, 12 SS EM daggers all had a wide range of fit. Heck just refer to Wittys SS book, he even brings up this very topic of grip fits and there are ALL kinds of grip fits. Just because the fit is not perfect does not mean it’s bad. Looks at SA high leaders daggers grip fits.....are they bad??????????????

Fred, your comment on the materials, SS M36 daggers used many combinations, photos never show all the details. In hand inspections are critical. FYI this is NOT my dagger, photos were sent to me from a fellow collector. SOOOO I have NO horse in this race.

I think too many collectors look & create problems that never existed. "Can't see the forest thru the trees" Do you REALLY think a German officer would care if there is a .05mm gap in the grip of his dagger? Give me a break! These were dress items, there is no real function.

What he said.

Collecting, for some, seems to have become a "micro-science." A dagger pops up and out come the micrometers. Is the grip gap a millimeter different than another? Does the gap between the blade and guard have a micron gap? Is the motto a 1/16th of an inch off center? Condemn them all! Gee, guys, these things weren't made to be perfect. Imperfect parts put together by imperfect mortals. Add time, age, storage and handling. "Gee, I don't like it because it ain't perfect." Let's "get real," folks. There are real, fake and parts daggers out there. Experience, research and learned opinions have pretty much sorted all of this out. Should a collector be cautious? Of course. But, to nitpick the insignificant can lead to a warped perception of what is authentic and what is not. Before you know it, there will be so much suspicion about daggers that it will lead to an unhealthy paranoia about them. Relax, stick to the basics and enjoy the hobby.

Well said Grumpy in the early 70s there suddenly were very good repro daggers around and I unwittingly bought a bad GO for $400 (a few weeks money then)so decided to move all fifty odd daggers on didn't lose on the deals but oh how I miss my $50 SS 33s $20 SAs etc
Higndsight is no substitute for paranoia should have just dumped the bad GO
As an aside didnt all our treasures start as a pile of parts on a dagger assembly bench???

A general unfocused paranoia is one thing, but a paranoia for cause IMO is not the same. There is some hard data that the Germans were fully aware of shrinkage and movement in drying wood (and had the tools to measure it - albeit more primitive than now). And with the different woods used in grips, I think that it’s fair to assume that from time to time there could be grips that exceeded the normal anticipated shrinkage ratios/movement. Especially with the later examples as substitutes were sought.

Where it gets a lot more problematic is with grips that were damaged by forced fitting. Here are two examples that are probably too far gone to try and compensate by either shortening the grip, or attempting to blend in the broken away areas. Fred

[quote=Fred Prinz - FP]A general unfocused paranoia is one thing, but a paranoia for cause IMO is not the same.

I can only approve with the above statement.

If a person feels happy with such a Gau marked Chained SS, that's just fine with me and I fully respect its decision, but it is also my privilege to disregard such a dagger.
In any case, I really don't understand as to why anyone would buy such a dagger when you can get a textbook M36 Chained SS without the Gau marked for the same price ? I just don't get it but again, I don't own one and I don't need to do any explanating to sell it. The burden of proof will always belong to the seller and nothing else.

Pat,

No one is disputing your right to buy whatever you want. However, some people take too much stock into what the "experts" say and will not touch anything that is not "blessed" by them.

What we are against is people labelling pre 1945 daggers as repros and parts when they are not. I faced the same criticism when I sold a nice Gau marked SS dagger that the "experts" you and I know, labelled as parts. Fortunately I did find someone who knew better and was able to sell it for top dollar. What we are trying to do is legitimize daggers that should not need legitimizing if common sense is used.

FP, The daggers you have posted can also be a result of people cranking down the tang nut too tight, thus causing the grip to "dig in" to the crossguard and a flake can occur on the surface. As the wood expands and contrast causing the brittle outside to give. Also I have a vet acquired Bertram Reinh, the grip as a gap due to being in a very dry environment (Arizona) the grip even warped a little. The grip contours fit perfectly and flush to the crossguards. Bet the Germans never thought what the wood would do after 70+ years in a hot dry environment. IMO the Gau marked SS daggers have gotten a bad rap, as time passes buy the “experts” will be forgotten and I am sure the next generation of collectors will not really care. How many time have collectors of TR items been mistaken??? Many years ago many Sr Collectors thought thought the unmarked M36 dagger blades were fake or some kind of replacement
due to missing makers marks! Collectors tend to over analyze relics, and come to some odd conclusions. Textbooks can be VERY wrong and ALWAYS contain mistakes! Also Textbooks can be re-written. Look a Angolas 1980's books, FULL of fakes being passed off as "real". Just becuase it in a book doesn't always make it good my friends!

same can be said about Atwood's book which IMO deliberately included his post war fabrications to give them credibility. At the time as a young collector I drooled over his Ss proto types one offs etc but would I buy one now if I had the chance knowing what it really was
Depending on price/condition the answer is probably yes cause his repro's are now collectable in their own right

As we look back from this point in time, the sad truth is that some books have been used as tools for selling not just outright fakes, but sometimes with altered "humped up" items as well.


While Arizona is a tad more severe, I’ve lived and worked in both Germany and the Southwest, with a large part of California being simply irrigated desert. At one time I was a fairly serious collector of rifles including the Mausers (German, CZ, and FN). Having rifles that spent a great deal of their time out in the elements ranging from Arctic conditions to the Equatorial jungle. So I think that I have some understanding of climactic changes as seen with a number of period items.

I’m going to try and keep this brief and simplistic, agreeing that too much force from the pommel nuts is what caused the wood to break off (shear) from the grips. But for far too many of these, it wasn’t simply from expansion and contraction. That’s because wood shrinks by a factor of 10 to 1 from the edges, as compared to top and bottom (lengthwise). And with wood that shrank 1/16, 1/8/, 3/16 inch (whatever) on the sides, the lengthwise portion is going to be 1/10 of that. Which is also why the many, many thousands of still well fitted political daggers don't have loose grips. And any corresponding expansion from the atmosphere (if it happens) is not nearly as dramatic as wood that has been immersed. There is more like the way the wood has broken off, and some other things, but as I said I’m trying to keep it brief and simple.

Here is another Gau marked “Type I” with multiple problems. It has gaps. Some big pieces are missing from where the top of the grip meets the crossguard. And it has an ill fitting metal to metal juncture where the crossguard meets the mouthpiece (and some other issues). Is this just another example of “natural forces at work” - or has someone been fooling around? Regards to All, Fred

Bumped. FP