I've just bought this one and am pretty confident it's OK, but there are a couple of things that trouble me with it. I only have Ron's first book, so just not enough info.

The pros are that the lug is stamped "753", the tang is marked with a forge mark "P reversed & 4" and the crossguards and pommel not are all plated aluminium.

The cons are that there are no umlats on the maker mark, the lug doesn't have the bevel on the bottom edge, and the motto point is 31mm from the crossguard, too far???

I call on the NPEA Gods for help... are there red flags here?

Thanks, Red

Stamped crossguard

Motto Etch

Motto

Buffer pad

Lousy pic of the "EW" marked crossguard

Tang forge mark

Lug, with no lower bevel?

Steel scabbard ball

I guess my biggest concern is the lack of umlat over the "u" of Burgsmuller. I have always read that is the kiss of death, a sure sign of a repro. This dagger just seems too right to be wrong

Thanks...

I agree with Redbaron. Could be a parts dagger, but the blade is one to avoid. Is the ball at the tip of the scabbard magnetic? Are there markings under the scabbard lug?

Thanks Grumpy. The lug is stamped "753" and the scabbard ball is magnetic. The dagger comes from a good source, but I'm just not sure enough on these, way too many good fakes out there...

Red

Well, the maker mark not only lacks the umlaut, but appears to be somewhat sketchy. It is not unusual to find real ones with really bad blades, due to abuse and neglect. It seems all parts may be authentic, but the blade is a repro replacement. I'm no expert on NPEA daggers, but I would pass on this one, due to the questionable blade.

It's really hard to tell without the dagger in hand, but I think Ron Weinand told me he never saw a fake blade with the reverse P tang stamp. I have seen this maker mark on original daggers with just one of the umlaut dots, some with a smudged together pair of dots. So, I suppose, an example missing the umlaut is possible if everything else is correct. On this example, I am concerned the O is a very small size, at least compared to the early Oranienstein stamped examples I've seen...see picture.

Hopefully Ron will comment on this dagger.

As far as the etching looking somewhat broken up, that is normal from the extreme magnification. Here's an original example with just one dot, tang has the backwards P 4

I'd have to say the "sketchiness" of the two maker marks is quite similar. It would take someone like Ron W. to recognize the good from the bad. The absence of the umlaut still bothers me, but etching can be flawed.

Thanks Guys, so the jury is still out on this one

John, thanks for the pics, it's looking promising but I'm still a little nervous re the maker mark and different stamping to the example you have shown. Also, the maker mark you show doesn't have the hyphen after Berlin, so perhaps etch quality/inconsistency comes into play with these later pieces?

I know Ron and yourself are the NPEA fanatics, so I appreciate the insight. Ron, where are you? Please help

Thanks, Red

753 marked lug
magnetic ball
reversed P and 4 on tang
lower crossguard looks to be marked EW and the small "O" could be OK on a late piece.
hyphen after Berlin is OK on late piece
Too many good points to declare this a bad dagger. JMO

I agree with Don, there is a lot to like about this dagger. I like the felt buffer too. My only question was the crossguard stamping, only because I don't have any later Oranienstein daggers to compare with. Anyone have any pictures of a later Oranienstein school marked dagger to compare the number fonts etc?

John

No John, you & Don have them all

First big red flag to me is the position of the O, no tail on the O by the period and the number is too low for the TM style and the plated crossguards. I would think they would still be nickel silver in that range for that school. It was one of the early ones and one of the larger ones in population.
Maybe some of the parts are good, but the combination is wrong to me.
I have been working in Pharmacy for my brother in law who is ill and needed someone to work for him (he is a pharmacist also), so I have been out of town.
Ron

Thanks to all for the feedback and observations, it is really appreciated. The sum of the parts do look good, but the reasoning on the stamped numbering makes a lot of sense to me. I can't find any other examples anywhere of Oranienstein stamped examples... Would it be fair to say that the dagger appears to be real and correct for its period, and that the crossguard stamping is questionable? Or are some of the components also at odds? The distance of the full point at the end of the motto seems further away from the crossgaurd than others I’ve compared to? Any other thoughts?


Thanks, Red

Thanks to all for the assistance. I will be returning the dagger to the local dealer who bought it from Joe Pankowski at the 2007 SOS and thought it to be "textbook". I guess I'll wait for a better speciman.

Red