UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons SS Dagger Forum How about these ruins -

This is on a dagger for sale - Boker SS - Any good??

They are "runes" not "ruins", and yes they are good. This is the classic Boker sig-rune button where the rune touches the inner ring. Boker used at least three different types.

Thank you - On the search there are some posts that call them ruins so that is what I went by - Sorry

No need to apologize! Here are a couple of different rune buttons on Bokers.

Thanks again - I sure would not have thought that it was correct

After looking closer this one is Bocker instead of Boker - ????

B�KER have produced these black daggers.

A note for for the newer collector of early SS Daggers:

I do NOT subscribe at all to the theory that certain early SS makers MUST have certain types of runes. Rejecting or accepting early SS daggers based solely on the type of runes button is not very wise. These buttons were a supplier item that probably came 100 to a box, and as we know, there are many small variations. I find it hard to believe that wholesalers stocked these by variation or that manufacturers ordered them that way. Same applies to variations in early nickel silver eagles.

Dave

Interesting tang nut on the 2nd photo, I never seen anything like that on an early or late model SA/SS dagger. Looks like a dagger take down tool to remove the tang nut would not be possible. No way of fitting it in there. I have seen many variant crossguards on political daggers but never a variant tang nut, except if they were higher or lower but regardless a tool would still fit in there. Regards Larry

Larry,

There is one major variant of tang nuts - the tapered tang nut. The hole in the upper CG was larger than normal to accommodate the wider nut. The nut was the same on top, but the shaft was tapered. See below for some old pictures I took of an M7/91 RZM dagger.

I have only found these nuts on later RZM daggers, both SA and SS, but never on early ones.

Dave

Dave I see what your saying on the examples you provided, and yes the shaft is tapered but was it normal for the 6 sided nut to be tapered too,, thats my question. Maybe my eyes are deceiving me but it looks like the nut where a take down tool would go into is tapered.
Sorry Skyline,, I am not questioning your dagger but questioning myself since I never saw this before,, regards Larry

My pictures above are not as clear as I hoped.I have found another two that show the tapered nut much clearer. Note the "F B" crossguards again and the larger than normal hole in the upper CG.

The one posted just above looks either like a tapered nut screwed in too far or a normal nut that was not manufactured correctly. It could be unscrewed with a thin enough wrench.

Dave

Thanks Dave,and Im sorry for going way off the "runes topic" but its interesting to me being an "early period collector" why would something like a tang nut have to be changed and for what purpose? For me the only possible reason why this would be like this is for a tighter crossguard/grip fit. The taper would act as a wedge,, when screwed on the tang would tighten up to the Upper C guard. I dont know what was wrong with the old style which I think the materials and craftmanship were more superior.

#1 Is there a reason why this was tapered this way?
#2 So now from what I am seeing in the last photo , is that there are early SS examples with this type of tang nut?

Im curious also if there were any SAs like this, ( but thats for the other forum)
One thing I really like is the deep cut recess in the Lower C Guard for the blade shoulders to fit in. Thanks and regards Larry

My GR Boker has the same rune button that started this thread.

Larry,

They do exist on SA/NSKK daggers of the same period and are a bit easier to find because of larger production numbers.

I have never figured out the reason for the tapered nut. It seems to solve a non existent problem. It did not IMO facilitate assembly nor did it help "centering" any more than the regular system. I see no cost reduction or "ease of manufacturing" gains in the system. The fact that only a few daggers are found with this suggests that the experiment was limited.

That last photo was sent to me years ago by a fellow from Australia for my opinion. The trademark seems to be part of transitional Eickhorn trademark placed much higher than normal on the blade along with nothing else. He said he picked it up "from a mate". The only other picture I have is below. The fellow did not reply after a couple of emails. To my analysis, all the grip parts are genuine RZM. The blade, who knows ? Never saw the scabbard.

Everyone missed my second post - The picture is of the maker "Bocker" - Not Boker - Probably as mentioned the runes were supplied by makers to different dagger makers so it is probably ok anyway -

Bocker is not a recognised maker of SS daggers and made few early SA daggers

I am looking at one with the correct motto and correct Bocker maker mark - The rest looks ok to me -??? - Any chance that some were made??

Always a chance. Send me some pictures from different angles.

Dave

Empire trader does your maker logo have stick bird like an ostrich in the middle of the circle? If it does then its Karl Bocker

Strangely my 2002 edition of Fisher says they made SS AND SS Rohms!!!

SS and SS Rohms? Interesting

I have seen a fake Bocker early SS dagger. A crude small double oval trademark.

Dave

These pics are not the best

Looks like a BOKER ground Rohm to me

It is spelled Bocker and is not a Boker - Has a little stick figure in the circles -

Are you sure?

It's not a stick figure,it's a Tree inside double Oval.

Gerd

AJ is right.
It's a B�ker GR.

I lean toward your being right - I can't tell from the picture they posted -