Hello, not a big SA fan but do like Eik. What is the actual date on the large oval? I knew there was a smooth, serrated, and small oval, which came first?

sa2

I think we are all familiar with this maker mark
for fun

Large oval & Serrated tail

Roy,
Nice tat.
Your mark is #41 on page 133 of "Sword and Knife Makers of Germany 1850-2000"
It says nothing about your specific mark, but if I may quote:
"Eich mark #40 may have been used during the late 20's as it has been recorded on an early M 1929 Naval officers dagger. A Weimar Police Bayonet (GC/113,DB/314)has a similar trade mark (41)"
#41 is your mark Roy. So it would have to be after 1929.
If you have the reference book definately sheck it out.
Guess you will be headed to the post office tomorrow, looking forward to it Roy!
Thanks in advance,
Johnny

I think the correct answer here is that it was used SOMETIMES shortly before 1933-and SOMETIMES in 1933 and shortly after.

This Eickhorn Logo is a Fake !!!

Sorry !
Wikinger

Hey Roy! You like Eick Logos? Here's one you won't see every day! This is on an SS dagger I have. 3FL



3FL

smooth tail

3FL
Are you saying this logo is an authentic, period logo? On an SS blade?

Looks like it to me! It is on a Blade that I picked up a while back. Had to Have It! Never seen the same one before or since! But the books say it is a legitimate Eick Trademark! See Page 242 in Johnson Volume 1!

3FL
Sorry, but it doesn't look like anything to me except a rather poor attempt at passing off a "known" but unseen logo etch. The mark you show isn't "like" the logo pictured in Johnson, anyway..... Look at the differences. BAD stuff here. Blade spline is too high and the etches just don't match in depth or any other way. Cross grain looks to be suspicious also as far as being an original SS blade.

Bad blade to start with that has been "embellished" by a maker's mark that was NOT used during the period on SS, SA, or any subsequent dagger blade made and used during the TR period.

NORMALLY, I've found that "loose" blades are just that, loose (bogus) blades that were made to sell and mess with collector's minds.

This blade is not authentic (to the TR period anyway).

JMHO......

Hi DJ,

Thanks for your not so HO! Tom Johnson was not quite that positive when he looked at it. He said that he had only seen that trademark used on butcher knives and such from the period ('38 - '40)! he did make some of the other comments you made about the spine, but not about the grain, I find it amazing that you can sound so Authoritative looking at a so-so photo, when he was not quite as sure while holding it in his hand! And looking at the entire blade and not just a 2" square of it. Maybe you should give him some pointers! But your opinion is noted and appreciated anyway! JMHO....

D.J., BTW - What do you think of the Eick Logo this thread started with?

3FL
You're quite welcome for my HO......

Tom Johnson may have unwittingly solved this mystery when he said and I quote you "He had only seen the logo on butcher knives and such" during the period you describe....

IMHO Only, I'd be more willing to believe this is from a butcher knife than an SS blade. It, honestly, reeks REPO, to me. AGAIN MHO.....

Closing this out for me, The things that bother me are the "high" spline; a logo that was used on "butcher knives"; the totally different etches present, from the RZM markings to the logo; the logo differences; and crossgraining that looks as if it was done on a bench grinder at my place.

You seem to fancy yourself as an expert, why don't you explain the differences without asking more questions and trying to further cloud real issues?

How many More things should one have to see to know that this is BAD? I've seen enough, Thank you.

I think it's high time people see through some of the fog that seems to be settling in and around some of these, here-to-fore, "unknown" pieces. Stuff that's blatantly bad, held up as original, is one more step in preparation for a funeral for this hobby.

"You seem to fancy yourself as an expert, why don't you explain the differences without asking more questions and trying to further cloud real issues?"

Whoa Bud, Jump Back! I don't recall EVER saying anything that would indicate that I consider myself an expert! I DO NOT! And I don't even like the term and would never apply it to myself. Of all people, One of the things that I have learned from being in and around this hobby is how little I, or anyone else for that matter, really knows about this stuff. In truth, My biggest problem with your post was not really what you said, just the uhh...Ahem, overly forceful, shall we say, way you expressed it! The best description I have ever heard of an "expert" was this, I quote "An Expert is a person who knows more and more about less and less until he knows almost everything about almost nothing!" Not so much you, but one of my primary problems with GDC is that there are so many people who seem to just love running around Throwing bombs out of the blue into threads and then getting all PO'ed when somebody says anything about the way they did it! It would seem that ANY Opinion could be expressed without the soaring descriptions, i.e. "and crossgraining that looks as if it was done on a bench grinder at my place." This kind of statement attacks the person's intellegence who made the original comment. Thiink about it, Denny! Can't you see the problem? That kind of statement says, "Any idiot should be able to see this, so I consider you an Idiot!" If the point is to educate and illuminate the other hobbiests a person should not have to get their rocks off by running around yelling about what an ignoramus everybody else is and I am smarter than all of you! Once Again, It is not so much you, but it just tears me up to have to see new people constantly being driven away from this forum that are not nearly so thick skinned as I am. You can choose to agree or disagree now, but I do NOT think you are an idiot and, if you think about it a little, I would hope you can see what I am talking about and agree! Cheers! 3FL

I dont think you are an idiot...

As you stated a long time ago you have been collecting dealing since the 70's. so you should have learnt something by now.

But i do think you do like etching daggers !

For what purpose I�ve absolutely no idea !!

Steve Wonder dropped me a line, even he thinks it a bad etch too...

In the same class as last months SS Louper

3FL
I agree. ALL I was trying to say was the fact that, In My Humble Opinion, the blade you show is BAD. Semantics aside. I will never agree that this can be anything but a repo'd item though since it doesn't take an EXPERT to see through this one.......and it does look like it was done by a monkey on my bench grinder.

That should not cause any great reaction in someone that wasn't involved in it's grinding. That's the way I meant it...... (Did you mess with it? Did anybody you know mess with it? etc.etc.etc. That sort of thing in the troubleshooting flowchart)

Authentic? NO, even close, although I'm not an expert. There are some things that even us newbys can see. If it looks a duck, quacks like a duck, ...............

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.......

NOT calling you an idiot........

Strmpanzer, I am amazed and impressed! It only took you a Month to come up with those Sterling Quips! I don't think I can take the pressure! I must have really left you limping after our last little tete-a-tete to keep you working so busily to come up with somethng. But, if you don't mind, I will choose to ignore you for now until you can work the speed up a little for your lightning responses!

Denny, I absolutely was not referring to you calling ME an idiot. I couldn't care less about that. My concern was more for the newbie who is sitting around watching this and thinking to himself "Gee, looks OK to me! Is it really that obvious? He's inferring I'm an idiot also!" You have chosen to SAY you agree, then immediately went back to doing the same thing! I don't get it! I am left with now trying to make a decision. He knows what I am saying, but doesn't care! OR The whole point of this is not for anything other than a personal attack, in which case EVERYTHING you have said to this point has no Validity Whatsoever. So, I will task you with this:

#1 You have not said anything about the pictured item other than general "I don't like it's" Give me some specifics! Make this exchange USEFUL to somebody who may be reading along.

#2 Go ahead and have the Gonads to just say "I don't like You!, and I am gonna make noises about anything you put up!" In which case we can all give your comments the attention they deserve!

ALL MHO!

Can't say I've seen that maker mark 3FL but I am interested in seeing the rest of the dagger.

3FL
I've given you specifics. If you refuse to allow them to soak in, that's beyond my control, but you're free to think anything you like. I will not keep repeating what I see as terribly wrong with this "item", but YES, it's really that obvious, to me. I DO NOT buy into this thing, period. Call it whatever you wish to call it, but it's my opinion and it isn't changing.......

You seem intent upon trying to get something started with your chatter. NO ONE has said anything about disliking you. Have a little complex to deal with on your end? Certainly not anything I've said. I've only expressed my opinion AND will continue to do so if needed.

Nothing intended EXCEPT that the piece in question is BAD.

The new collector is wondering why anyone could mistake this as authentic. They are probably trying to learn and this junk only adds to the confusion.

Should everyone sit idly by and let anyone "sell" the idea that this is actually real? Some will say, Yes, while some will say, No. I just happen to be on the latter side of this discussion.

Denny, I am not being contentious! When I ask for specifics, "A monkey with Your bench Grinder" is not what I am asking for! You were specific in saying, TWICE, that it was done on YOUR bench grinder! That says NOTHING! You say you have given specifics, please say where? All I have seen is that the Blade is "BAD" putting it in Capital letters is NOT any kind of specific remark, The Logo is "not like the one in the book" (how?), Saying it Quacks is specific, but I haven't ever heard it do that yet! Saying the Grain is "suspicious" again doesn't say anything! What is there about it that you find suspicious? I DID give you credit for saying the spline was high! And the "butcher Knife" comment was Mine, or actually, Tom's, So repeating it back does not constitute a Specific. there is no Complex on this end and I DID NOT accuse you of anything! All I said was that There were only a couple of possibilities of why you made the comments you did without being able to back them up! So, once again, I welcome your observations, but please be specific! I believe I have been paying pretty close attention but, if I missed something, please clarify. Once again, I have not said you, or anyone are idiots, I exempted you from my initial comments, unlike our other friend. Would you like me to help you to be more specific? Like Multiple choice? How about this:

Logo: A: Too Big B: Too Small C: Lines not straight D: Should be stamped not etched E: Should be etched, not stamped F: Too high on Blade G: Too low on Blade Etc. Etc.

That is what I mean by Specific! Do you Understand? It was apparently important enough for you to say something, so say something USEFUL! It is obvious that it wasn't done on YOUR grinder, unless you know something I don't, and I don't even own a Monkey! It may, or may not, be "BAD", But what about it makes you feel it is BAD. You say it is obvious, but can't seem to find the words to express what it is that is Obvious! At this point, If you just want to say it is a gut feeling you have, say that! I would find even that acceptable! I think it looks fine except for the spine being too high, and a lot of transitionals had high spines, light mottoes, etc. I would think you know that. But please don't just stoop to parroting back BS you hear from someone who DOES have an Ax to grind with me over some stupid stuff that happened previously. If you can't say what there is about it specifically that you don't like, just say that also. I haven't known you to be the type to just throw a bomb and run up till now, so let's discuss it. Make your comment and give me the chance to reply. I will either try to make an argument that makes sense or, Maybe, even agree with you. Imagine that! By The Way, If you have seen my posts before, I would hope you know that, If I was cutting them myself, I am boastful enough to crow about it myself, I have done some engraving in the past, and it was just so-so, And I never tried to fool anyone with it! Cheers again! 3FL

Boys, boys, boys....

3FL... start a new thread, show some pictures and let's have a discussion about the dagger.

I agree with SDP here. This discussion is centering around a picture of a logo with a small section of the blade. I also request that 3FL post detailed picturs of the whole dagger plus scabbard and lets go from there!
Jim

Louie,
The arrow in a bullseye was a trademark used by Arthur Eickhorn & Co., not Carl Eickhorn. It's a reproduction.

Hey! Now THAT is a good specific comment from someone that has done their homework! BRAVO! That gives me something to research from! I might end up disagreeing, but now I have someplace to start! Thanks Jon! Will reply Shortly! 3FL

Everyone, I have to go for now, but will takes some more pics and either reply here or start a new thread this evening or in the morning! Thank you all! enjoyed it so far! 3FL

quote:

The arrow in a bullseye was a trademark used by Arthur Eickhorn & Co., not Carl Eickhorn.

Hi John.

Interesting discussion. I must say I think Denny makes a sensible analysis. However, in 3FL's defense, he is correct about Johnson attributing this mark to Carl Eickhorn - not Arthur Eickhorn.

Notice how the feathering on the shaft differs considerably from the example 3FL shows. I don't need to see addtional pics to know that his is bogus.......... Looks like someone wasn't doing their homework before they did this little job.

"Research from" or not, it's BAD..............as shown above. Might (but not convincing enough for me) be a smidgeon more believable if the logo was correct, but alas, it is NOT. Along with the other things I see, it remains the PITS......

Hey Denny! Once again, BRAVO! That was all I was asking of you! Throw out a comment that I / We can use! Your comment got me digging around in my books to see what else I could come up with. If you look at the same Logo on Page 223 of Johnson's small "Handbook" you will find an example of the logo we are talking about that looks much more like the one on the blade we are discussing. But I have to agree that you are correct if you use the first one I mentioned. Also, on Page 222 of this same reference you will find an example of the logo that looks just like the first one we discussed. And, since the image shown there is a direct reprint of the Zeichenroller Der Solinger, it is much more likely to be more accurate than the one on page 223. So, WELL DONE! You have proven your first point on the Logo and I have no choice but to agree with you! Thank you, Sir! That wasn't so difficult? Was it?

3FL

I don't need any "attaboys" from anybody for pointing out the obvious. A blind man can see that this "item" is bad.

The only thing that puzzles me is why the deafening quiet when stuff like this is shown as original. Is it that people don't know or just don't care?

I'm beginning to develop the same attitude. Why not just step back, do and say nothing, allow the myth (and lies) to continue, and watch the freaking ship sink?

C'mon Denny! Why continue to be adversarial? What may be obvious to you may not be to someone else! That is the only point I am trying to get across. From what you just said, it would lead another reader to think that your opinion is to just yell "it's bad" and wander off without telling why you think something is bad because it is so "Obvious". You have spent some time in the hobby and have built up strong opinions about items that I feel are valuable. Along with several other of the veterans of this site. I would hope that this site doesn't just degenerate to a mutual admiration society where the senior members just "Ooo" and "Ahh" over each others stuff and treat anyone who doesn't have a clue, wanders by looking for some real information, and posts something questionable, as just another idiot who can't see the "Obvious"! It seems that "We" are already past the point where the ship is sinking and are just barely treading water and thinking we are in the Grand Ballroom! At some point in your collecting history, Somebody had to hold your hand and tell you, "Look Denny, This dagger you are so excited about is bad because Eickhorn didn't make crossguards like this! An Eick crossguard needs to have This and This to be considered Original." And the whole time they were telling you this they were thinking Why this idiot can't see it, It is so Obvious! I thought that one of the stated purposes of this forum was to Educate. This is a noble idea and, I am sure was intended well in the begining. If this has become not one of the purposes of this forum any longer, Then it should be closed to the public and only allow new members in by Vote of the Elite! This would keep out all the Riff Raff who are not sufficiently experienced to see the "Obvious"! Then if someone has the Gall to ask a question about anything, well then Hell, They can just be kicked out. Let the stupid Newbie go get his head ripped off by someone unscrupulous, just like "I" did, and get his education by hard knocks. Which we all know is the only really valid way to teach someone anyway. That is when the Ship is really sunk! The "Myth (and lies)" you refer to so frequently can (and will) only continue as long as people have the attitude that "If you are too stupid to see what I consider obvious, then you deserve whatever you get and shouldn't be collecting!". I ask you This. Who would you rather be telling a new collector what he should be considering an obvious Red Flag? You, or any other veteran of this group, Or some guy on E-bay trying to sell him an SS Dagger with a Plastic Handle? Because THAT guy is Going to be more than happy to spend a little time talking to his new "buddy" and telling him not to come over here because "Those guys will just call everything you have repros and won't give you any real information anyway! If you don't believe me, Just go on over to GDC and ask them what they think of THIS choice item!, You'll see!" THAT guy will get richer and the hobby will get Poorer. Because "We" are his best Recruiters as it stands now! There are more people than you realize reading this, and if "We" don't want the Ship to sink, "We" dam (sp.) well better start Bailing! MHO and FWIW!

I agree with you Denny. It seems there are very few people who are willing to step up to the plate here anymore.
Jim

3FL
Call it anything you like. Lest you forget, you posted this JUNK as real.

I repeat, "A blind man can see it's BAD".

This site may well become an example of the inmates running the asylum if people don't stand up and refute some of the outlandish claims that pop up these days as clearly illustrated by this repo'd SS blade.

Do and say anything you wish, I'm through wasting my breath.

Denny, You are absolutely wrong! My only comment when I posted it was this "Hey Roy! You like Eick Logos? Here's one you won't see every day! This is on an SS dagger I have." You can go back and read it yourself! As I am sure you are hoping no one else does! You then asked me if it was an authentic period LOGO, Which it is, to the best of my knowledge! You also asked me if it was on an SS blade, which it also is! I never said ANYTHING about it being a period Blade or any other opinion as to it's Originality. The truth is That I was not sure of it myself. But you didn't ask my Opinion! When pressed, You FINALLY made a statement that could be researched and verified and I was able to give you a definative opinion for myself that you helped me to finalize. What all this did do was give me the oportunity to address some observations I have about the Forum in General, and I thank you for the opportunity. It seems the only way to get any ideas out about this site is in the course of a violent debate, Which EVERYBODY will come around and watch!

I agree 100% with all your sentiments about the silence around here when something comes up like this, but my whole point throughout has been that it takes more than just being willing to step up to the plate. You have to also be willing to back up a statement that something is bad, or Good for that matter, with information that will educate and enlighten and not just Demean another person. Even if you got NOTHING from the exchange, I would hope there were other readers who will think about all that was said!

Now, If you will excuse me, I have some engraving to finish, as soon as I finish drop forging the last of this batch of TENO blades I am working on! 3FL

I'm still interested to see the whole thing.

I have two problems with the �Arrow/Bullseye� logo as pictured on a standard issue political dagger.

First (while more pictures are always a plus) aside from some other issues as was mentioned it appears that the depth/appearance of etch for the RZM is not the same for the �Arrow/Bullseye�. The laws of the physical universe as relates to etching would indicate that an item being etched would have the same appearance in a given piece of steel if it was done at the same time. Meaning that the two etches appear to have been done at different times.

Second, Arthur (or Artur) Eickhorn was a son of Carl Eickhorn and his business was more that of a design studio than an actual manufacturer. His logo was the �Arrow/Bullseye� which was registered in the 1920�s (and lapsed in 1930) that was used for a period by his father�s firm - but on nickel silver/silver plated dinnerware/tableware that Carl Eickhorn marketed instead of traditional Eickhorn trademarks. The rationale for it being on an SS political dagger???

As yet I have seen nothing to convince me that the piece in question is anything but a fake. FP

Hi Fred, Your second Paragraph, or actually all that you have to say, is basically an echo of what Tom Johnson said when he looked at the blade. Which, for SDP and others, is all that it is. All I have is the blade. I will post some more pics of the whole thing in a short. I just bought it off the guy as a curiousity. Strangely enough the Eick Logo and the Motto etch match! The RZM is what looks different or looks to have been added. both the motto and the eick logo are deep and black, the RZM is deep, but has no burnish in it. I have just been too busy to take some more pics yet. It is nice to hear some detailed comments that actually lead to some discussion! 3FL

Looking forward to the photo(s). "Curiosity killed the cat" and all...

OK, Just took these! Here they are!







3FL

I know, I know, the Umlauts are wrong! 3FL

But, See what I mean about the Logo and the motto matching?

Thanks for the pics 3FL, that motto is way off Does the blade appear to be real? dimension, billet clamp seams, etc... It'd be interesting to know if they used a real blade for this one, although the tip looks a bit mis-shapen.

Red

Hey Red, I hadn't really noticed it before, in the picture the tip does seem to taper pretty abruptly, Is that what you are seeing? It doesn't really look that bad when you are looking at it "in person". The motto doesn't look bad either except for the umlauts. It may have been a real blank they used. Of course, it is totally bogus now! What really got me going was the use of a VERY obscure trademark! You really WANT it to be good when you see something like that Ultra RARE Eick Trademark, which could blind a Newbie to the other Flaws. 'Know what I mean! Like I said, I bought it mainly for a curiosity! Course, whoever made it may have been counting on that even if somebody noticed the other problems, huh? 3FL

3FL

You know, something I think helps from all this is the fact that Fred's comments about Artur Eickhorn are NOT generally known information. Anybody reading Johnson's book, with no other information, would have had the idea that this trademark was a perfectly acceptable one for Eickhorn! Just incredibly Rare! And, given all the other stuff was OK, I can easily see Hundreds of Dollars being paid for this, even by a long time collector. Thoughts? 3FL

3FL, I remember seeing once somebody�s comment that books were helpful to educate collectors. But that they could also possibly be even more helpful to fakers because they could then create items for collectors wanting the rare and unusual. And some obviously fake items are seen in books past and present along with opinions/misinformation that have no basis in fact but which are presented as facts. On the much larger positive side books are an excellent means to expose collectors to items which they might never or seldom encounter in their collecting careers. And equipped with knowledge collectors can make better choices when making a decision on whether or not to buy something

Having said that in my own time as a GDC participant I can say that I have learned quite a lot. And fakes that in the past might have gotten past me have become more identifiable - for which I am very grateful.

As for the dagger blade itself, if possible, I would like some closeup images of the blade motto on par with this earlier image. In my estimation the RZM etching is much better executed that the �alternate Eickhorn� logo which IMO is not nearly as well done with much less precise borders and something going on at the bottom of the etch that I can�t quite make out. I also think that a closer examination of the tang is probably needed - but it�s too hard to say just what at a distance. FP

I thought I had seen this motto before, the letter form of the cap "M" and "T" are especially bad. I dug through my archives and found a few others which have the high grip eagle and various marks, mostly M7/36, on both M33 and M36 daggers, perhaps early Spainish... pure fake no doubt...

Red

Here's a nicely aged one complete with "combat" wear, probably eBay issue

Thanks for your obsrvations Red Baron! I will try to take some more photos of the motto in a little while! I am going to be at the doctor's for much of this mornning and it may be a little while.

Before this thread fades away, I did want to bring up a few comments about the mark that started this thread. (This one)



I have to agree with Wikinger's comment, but of course, I would like to add a few specifics to make it clear why I agree with his comment. As Beautiful as the blade posted is, I don't like the logo on it! It doesn't look anything like the known Original Logos in my little collection of trademarks! I think the Tail of the squirrel is a bit TOO serrated! Also the Acorn is way too small. Any other comments or refutations? The problems with this logo seem to have been missed by Houston and a couple of others who, I feel, should have noticed and made some kind of remark. 3FL

red Baron, Do you have any idea of the vintage of the mottos you posted pics of? 3FL

For comparison:
1

2

3

4

5

Thanks Dave, Your posting of comparison examples tends to make me think that you have no problems with this logo. I bow to your much greater experience with these. I do wish that Wikinger had added a little more to his comment that would tell us WHY he thought the Logo was bad. On my part, it may be just that I am not used to seeing such pristine examples of it. Thanks again! 3FL

I also now have some better examples to add to my little collection of trademarks! Thanks again! 3FL

Earliest of all SA marks and usually wf stamped crossgaurd. Superb!

Tim ----->>>

Very choice dagger. Dave

Excellent reference information here:
Hopefully we'll be seeing a lot of this type of information in T. Wittmanns new SA book!
Jim

tim lovely dagger. i was led to belive the smooth tail was the earliest,correct me if i am wrong

As far as I know, there is information that says whether the smmoth or serrated tail came first.

Dave

OOPS - meant to say NO Information. Sorry 'bout that.

3finger
That mark is absolutely genuine, as to the time frame Im sure it is early How many of these marks have you encountered first hand to make a statement like that? Just wondering how many Original 3rd Reich daggers do you own / have owned are you a newer collector?

Hi Roy, I was mainly going off of Wikinger's statement. Most of the eicks I have are a little newer vintage or of the back to back squirrel variety, I am not sure whether I have one with that particular squirrel. Like I said before, it is a beautiful blade and maybe I am just not used to seeing one that pristine. Initially the tail just looked a little too sharp to me on the edges. I recanted when Dave posted a couple of comparisons which were more of the condition I am used to looking at!! That one is yours? Gorgeous!

oops!

I really do wish that Wikinger would come back and follow up his statement with some information as to why he thought / thinks it is "bad"! But then that is what I am always frustrated with! People say something is bad but do not say why they think so! 3FL

As to the time frame part of the question, I was asking Red Baron the vintage of the Blade photos of the bogus mottos HE posted. I knew the Eick had to be a very early vintage mainly because of the "CE" marking. I am pretty sure that Eick only used that very early on. 3FL

Thanks Louie,

It is definetly alot harder to find them in this condition as you can figure they were made and sold 7-8 years prior to even the rzm's we see so to find one this special is a real treat. Im still wondering why he made that commet myself??? maybe he was joking around and meaning my tatoo was bad who knows...

Cool Tat! By the way! 3FL

I think some collectors worry about that early Eickhorn mark simply because they don't come up too often, and secondly they do appear on fake blades, I think they were attributed to Attwood, maybe early Reddick. The fakes of the early vintage were extremely well done... also appearing on Rohms, usually in the wrong position, but very well executed. Original marks of this vintage are most desirable, Roys example is beautiful.

The Spanish fakes are mostly from the 70's, although there are so many bad blades now its hard to pinpoint timeframes on them, especially with sellers trying to age them to pass them off as period war trophies.

Red

I think this comparison illustrates the minefield on early Eickhorn logos, there are so many variations which is highly unlikely given the very short timeframe these were produced on SA/SS blades. Some of these are obvious fakes, but others, ???

Red

Remember that in evaluating a trademark, it is not just the mark itself, but the postion on the blade, the motto, the blade itself (dimension, color, tang) and the rest of the dagger. The fakers seldom if ever get it all correct.

Dave

Dave is right on. The blade itself almost always tells the tale on a non presentation blade. Little differences or even major ones just indicate a different template. Why do these differences exist? Who knows? They could make up an interesting collection. If the standard blade is obviously real then-the TM is too-IMO- no one is going to remove the TM from an original and replace it with a fake one. Not at this point anyway--and you could tell-there would be obvious signs of it. Sometimes we worry just a bit too much about these non "textbook" things. Everything IS NOT in books and everything in books IS NOT correct. JMO It's not that easy to just refer to books as final authorities on these matters. If you do ---you often will come to an incorrect conclusion. JMO

Red Baron, Looking at your examples, the one in the red square is obviously the rare special issue "Easter Bunny" Squirrel that was only used on daggers manufactured during the Easter season to commemorate the holiday! Very nice and extremely Rare item, that one is! (The preceding is a JOKE! And, under no circumstances, to be taken as an accurate representation of my opinion!)