Gents,

At least two H. Himmler Inscription Daggers have been offered for sale this month by respected dealers not to mention Grumpy's dagger that appeared a few weeks ago. A couple of questions concerning these daggers have occurred to me. The oppinions of the collecting community would be greatly appreciated.

In volume 1 of Thomas Johnson's book, the author claims that only 200 of these daggers were made for members of the SS who took a prominent part in the disposal of the traitor Rohm. The claim is also made that each dagger was numbered 01 to 200, the number stamped on the upper crossguard.

I have also read, in Thomas Wittmann's book on the edged weapons of the German SS, that up to 2,500 Himmler inscribed daggers were made by Carl Eickhorn and presented by the Reichsfuhrer. The author states that the numbering went between 01 and 09 and that these were inspection numbers. He also explains that many H Himmler inscribed daggers were not numbered.

What are people's opinion on this subject?

1. Were daggers numbered 01 to 09 and many others not numbered?
2. If so, why did Tom Johnson think that they were numbered 01 to 200, when none over 09 have ever been found?
3. How rare are these daggers?
4. Presumably fakes have been attempted... Are they any good? How can one tell?

Many thanks for all informed opinions!

Arminius

1. Early Eickhorn SA ans SS daggers were individually fitted together in batches. The crossguards were stamped 1 through 9 or 10. Trays held the parts in slots so that once fitted together - such as grip to upper guards - they did not get mixed up. At some point they decided to quit doing this or some assemblers used tray with numbered slots for the crossguards. Who knows? Note that this is for ALL early Eickhorn SA/SS daggers.

2. TJ's book was written 35 - 40 years ago. TW's 13 years ago. The 200 number was based on the original order after Rohm was killed. Since then, it is obvious that many more than 200 were made. How many is a subject of debate.

3. Rare? not super rare like an early SS dagger by Gembruch or Jacobs. Desirable? Very!

4. Discounting the crude fakes or those with an RZM trademark, it all if the Himmler dedication. Most of those are genuine early daggers with a fake inscription added.

Dave

Thanks Dave for such a concise appraisal.

On point 1. I have seen, and own, some imperial navy daggers that have matching numbers stamped throughout, presumably to assist in production. Are you saying that this was the reason for these numbers stamped into the SA&SS crossguards?

Has anyone got photographic evidence of early SA & SS daggers stamped in this way, that are not inscribed with a blade dedication?

Arminius

Two examples; early SA service daggers' from Eickhorn.

Fantastic, many thanks for the photos.

I have been considering purchasing a H Himmler inscribed dagger, and found some of the literature contradictory. Particularly on the numbering of cross guards.

Presumably numbered SA and SS daggers must be very early production. So Eickhorn numbered Himmler daggers, the same as they would do on other Party daggers, until a certain point when they stopped bothering. Perhaps they numbered the trays of parts instead as mentioned above. Really interesting, thank you.

Dave,
In your opinion, it is acceptable to find Himmler dedicated daggers that don't have a numeral stamping on the crossguard?
Thanks

Yes, but I would wait for one with a benchmark number. Too many people doe not understand what those numbers meant.

Dave

Hi Arminius:

Read Ralf Seigert's chapter on Himmler daggers in his "The Service Daggers of the SS" for the most recent discussion of these daggers and documentation that supports why there seem to be so many Himmler daggers in nice condition. The book is available in German, English and now Russian. I will also be adding a newly discovered piece to the Himmler dagger story in my upcoming lecture "The Collecting Edge: Researching the Daggers, Rings, and Pins of the SS" at the The Max Show.

Enjoy!

Ross Kelbaugh

www.ssdaggers.com

Thanks Ross.

Just bought the book.

To each his own, but there is nothing "wrong" about a Himmler dagger, nor any other early Eickhorn, with no number on the crossguard. If the dagger is authentic, in nice condition and priced within your range, that is is what is important. I would not let the absence of a number prevent me from buying one.

I agree: the benchmark number is a nice bonus, but no must on Himmlers and Eickhorm produced Röhm daggers.

Adding a number to a nickel-silver crossguard is a piece of cake, so that is absolutely not the challenge for the fakers.

Before you buy one:
- Make sure the blade bears the correct Eickhorn maker mark
- On the correct location of the blade.
- Also, be attentive to the blade finishing (crossgrain)

Those elements appear problematic for the fakers... at the moment anyway.

Best regards,

Herman

Well said Grumpy
I have a Himmler dagger with the numbered cross guard and one without to my untrained eye they are the same.
Personally I don't think it matters as the up to date information about these desirable daggers is now out there and with Ralf's latest book as well as TW's more and more collectors are becoming skilled up on these daggers but that's not to say if buying one make sure you have it authenticated with a money back guarantee.

Ross, since several didn't have the opportunity to be at the seminar, I'm sure they would be interested in seeing this new info.

A Blast from the past to add to this thread
http://phpstack-500133-1583587.cloudwaysapps.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=254322&page=1

That's it, Lar...you found it. Thank you! I had forgotten that the document that Ross had at the MAX, was the same one in this topic from 4 years ago.

I seem to recall that years ago someone made the observation that some of the daggers that were numbered 1-9 and unmolested had the same number stamped on the outside of the short strap hanger. I checked mine and it, while faint, had the bench number of the dagger on the strap. It vas very faint and several times larger than the bench # on the large crossguard.
It was so faint that I never noticed it and never would have.
It's so faint that I don't think I could photo it.

I second that motion. I was unable to attend the MAX but would dearly like to know more about Ross's lecture.