Translate German to English - Click here to open Altavista's Babel Fish Translator Click here to learn about all those symbols by people's names.

leftlogo.jpg (20709 bytes)

Upgrade to Premium Membership

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
#25084 06/15/2010 03:14 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,077
Offline
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,077

#25085 06/15/2010 03:18 AM
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 5,552
Likes: 9
JR Offline
Offline
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 5,552
Likes: 9
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 ?

#25086 06/15/2010 03:27 AM
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,430
Likes: 1
B
Offline
B
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,430
Likes: 1
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.Smile


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.


"And I will show you where the Iron Crosses grow"
-Cross of Iron
#25087 06/15/2010 03:51 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
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

#25088 06/15/2010 04:09 AM
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,917
Likes: 5
Offline
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,917
Likes: 5
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.


MAX CHARTER MEMBER

LIFE MEMBER OVMS
#25089 06/15/2010 04:33 AM
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,430
Likes: 1
B
Offline
B
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,430
Likes: 1
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.


"And I will show you where the Iron Crosses grow"
-Cross of Iron
#25090 06/15/2010 05:02 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
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

#25091 06/15/2010 10:19 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,304
P
Offline
P
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,304
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 Big Grin but that's another story.

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

#25092 06/15/2010 11:54 AM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,128
Likes: 2
Offline
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,128
Likes: 2
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


[Always looking for TeNo � Schuma � Technische Noodhulp Items...]
#25093 06/15/2010 12:27 PM
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,430
Likes: 1
B
Offline
B
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,430
Likes: 1
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. Wink


"And I will show you where the Iron Crosses grow"
-Cross of Iron
#25094 06/15/2010 02:13 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,026
Z
Offline
Z
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,026
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. Wink


"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it" Santayana
#25095 06/15/2010 02:45 PM
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,917
Likes: 5
Offline
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,917
Likes: 5
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.


MAX CHARTER MEMBER

LIFE MEMBER OVMS
#25096 06/15/2010 04:06 PM
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,430
Likes: 1
B
Offline
B
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,430
Likes: 1
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.


"And I will show you where the Iron Crosses grow"
-Cross of Iron
#25097 06/15/2010 04:09 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
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

rusted__crossguard.jpg (86.72 KB, 216 downloads)
#25098 06/15/2010 04:44 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,023
Likes: 1
Offline
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,023
Likes: 1
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.

#25099 06/15/2010 05:35 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
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

#25100 06/15/2010 06:00 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,023
Likes: 1
Offline
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,023
Likes: 1
No apologies required Smile
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.

#25101 06/15/2010 06:24 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
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

#25102 06/15/2010 06:57 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,077
Offline
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,077
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.

#25103 06/15/2010 07:47 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,023
Likes: 1
Offline
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,023
Likes: 1
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 Smile
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 Wink
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!" Big Grin

#25104 06/15/2010 07:56 PM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,291
OP Offline
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,291
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.


_______________________

German Sabers
#25105 06/15/2010 09:23 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,023
Likes: 1
Offline
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,023
Likes: 1
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.

#25106 06/15/2010 09:29 PM
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,084
Likes: 96
Online Content
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,084
Likes: 96
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 Big Grin. Instead we see bad positioning, tilted strikes, double strikes, etc.

Dave

#25107 06/15/2010 09:46 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,077
Offline
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,077

#25108 06/15/2010 10:45 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,037
Likes: 4
Offline
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,037
Likes: 4
quote:


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

#25109 06/15/2010 11:05 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
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

chipped_grip.jpg (37.31 KB, 480 downloads)
#25110 06/15/2010 11:48 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 693
R
RFI Offline
Offline
R
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 693
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

#25111 06/16/2010 01:15 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
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

#25112 06/16/2010 04:17 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
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

#25113 06/16/2010 02:13 PM
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,430
Likes: 1
B
Offline
B
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,430
Likes: 1
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. Wink


"And I will show you where the Iron Crosses grow"
-Cross of Iron
#25114 06/16/2010 03:51 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
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

#25115 06/16/2010 04:03 PM
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,430
Likes: 1
B
Offline
B
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,430
Likes: 1
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.


"And I will show you where the Iron Crosses grow"
-Cross of Iron
#25116 06/16/2010 05:32 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
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

chipped_grip_front.jpg (33 KB, 371 downloads)
#25117 06/16/2010 06:23 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,023
Likes: 1
Offline
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,023
Likes: 1
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.

#25118 06/16/2010 07:24 PM
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,917
Likes: 5
Offline
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,917
Likes: 5
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


MAX CHARTER MEMBER

LIFE MEMBER OVMS
#25119 06/16/2010 08:09 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
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

#25120 06/16/2010 08:54 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
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

#25121 06/16/2010 08:59 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,023
Likes: 1
Offline
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,023
Likes: 1
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. Wink 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.
Smile

#25122 06/16/2010 09:27 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,023
Likes: 1
Offline
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,023
Likes: 1
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.
Big Grin
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!! Big Grin
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.

#25123 06/17/2010 12:05 AM
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,430
Likes: 1
B
Offline
B
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,430
Likes: 1
We all know that they reused Rohm blades. Why on earth would they not reuse the crossguards as well?


"And I will show you where the Iron Crosses grow"
-Cross of Iron
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Dave 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Popular Topics(Views)
2,261,507 SS Bayonets
1,760,286 Teno Insignia Set
1,128,765 westwall rings
Latest New Threads
Luftwaffe Swords
by Tanker - 03/27/2024 07:29 PM
Paul Weyersberg Heer
by Tanker - 03/27/2024 07:13 PM
HJ Fahrtenmesser,
by OWN - 03/27/2024 07:05 PM
Wir fahren gegen Engelland - Battle of Britain
by Stephen - 03/27/2024 10:06 AM
Hiddensee brooch
by benten - 03/24/2024 04:13 PM
Latest New Posts
HJ Fahrtenmesser,
by OWN - 03/28/2024 06:18 PM
Wir fahren gegen Engelland - Battle of Britain
by Gaspare - 03/28/2024 12:34 AM
Paul Weyersberg Heer
by Tanker - 03/27/2024 11:30 PM
Luftwaffe Swords
by Tanker - 03/27/2024 07:29 PM
Frog question.
by Dutchman - 03/27/2024 03:27 PM
Forum Statistics
Forums42
Topics31,652
Posts328,704
Members7,501
Most Online5,900
Dec 19th, 2019
Who's Online Now
18 members (AndyRose, Documentalist, Duzig, atis, Jonesy, Nietzsche, Dave, OWN, Mikee, Stephen, benten, Don Scowen, polop, Browning1900, Tanker, BAM, Herman V. (aka Herr Mann), Julianek), 603 guests, and 102 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5