UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons Miscellaneous Dagger Forum Variant 2nd Mod. Railway Horster

At the MAX Show I had a US Army Veteran's sons approach my table (THEY DON'T COLLECT) to evaluate their father's war booty. He as a 9th Division veteran and brought 2 daggers home: an Army that was nothing special and a EARLY, silver plated hand enhanced Horster 2nd Model Railway. It is the Rail that is the exception rather than the normal. All the usual Horster company traits with the exception of silver plating over aluminum, EARLY oval Horster TM rather than the two line written out type expected on the Railway and a beautiful hand enhanced crossguard (without the flaw or it was covered up by the enhancement). All this has caused me to adjust my opinion that ONLY the flawed pieces are seen, at least in this variation with the enhanced crossguard which probably covers the flaws. Pictures follow.

Crossguard:

TM

Also, I tried to buy the dagger, but it was NOT FORSALE at any price!!

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Weinand:
Also, I tried to buy the dagger, but it was NOT FORSALE at any price!!

At any price ? Give me his number and I'll make him an offer that he won't refuse.
Kidding aside, that's a fantastic dagger and an extremelly rare variable.
We now have to review all of our reference books with this new piece of evidence.
Thanks for sharing this important discovery.

Wow --that's a rare one. Never seen that. There is just no end to the different items you may only see once in a lifetime of looking.

Dear Ron, I am very glad you have opened this certain thread aside from our pm contact.
So I dare to jump in and show also here again another kind of crossguard (on an EICKHORN dagger) with "no flaw" (in real the "flaw" is camouflaged by a period ciseleur which is prooved by the silvering over the ciseleur´s work).

Here the detail you can clearly see the (simple - compared to the HÖRSTER) work of the ciseleur.

We also have to stop with the error that ONLY the aside HÖRSTER "logo" is correct for period HÖRSTER rrpp daggers. In contrary also the OVAL ones are period and correct.
Mine came decades ago directly from the widow of the former wearer whose household was in the Salzburg/Austria aera. Very late pot metal grip fittings with silver wash and the steel scabbard with the "aluminium" coating. Only normal army portepee instead of the flecked rrpp which also leads to a very late wearing date as these army portepees are said to be correct for the late war years.
I never have published it because I did not want this rare dagger beeing smashed simply because of the comon error knowledge concerning trademarks but now here it is.
I wonder how much good HÖRSTER with oval logo were shunned because of the common, spread error.
Oh, yes and I forgot, my HÖRSTER dagger HAS the flaw in the crossguard front.

The correct OVAL logo.
Regards,

Wow, great info here and super pieces to boot! Ron too bad you could not grab that piece.

The only caviot that might be added to the Horster TM situation is that it is known FOR SURE that the two line written TM style CANNOT be a repro because that style TM was NEVER used on any other Horster product and would be a hard one to reproduce by the fake artists IMO.
As you all well know, this particular dagger was a target early on by the repro traders.
Ron Weinand

I was a tooling Engineer in the Die Casting business for years. Aluminum actually pulls iron out of the tool steel causing pitting, thus a lousy product finish. Another typical problem is if something gets stuck in the parting line of the die, causing a impression in the tool steel. The Eickhorn casting "flaw" had to be a repair job on the tooling. SO the 1st run had products would NEVER have this defect. Other problems are trapped gas, cold material & Tooling. Example of ware look at 1st run GO daggers vs later examples. Same goes for Land customs daggers. As the tool wears the worse the castings look!.

quote:

HÖRSTER dagger HAS the flaw in the crossguard front.

Maybe they bought casings from Eickhorn?

I'm not sure these were die cast as You or I know it Mr. Rader. When I made molds I used h13 tool steel the dies have to be plumbed for cooling ejector pins etc..... Yes gating and parting lines are always a proplem but I really don't think they were (die cast) Army daggers I know for sure were not..... Have the pictures of what they used...

Never the less the tools did wear, no matter what tpye of dies used.

Great to have a camera handy since he let you take photos of it.
How many were made like that with the enhansed crossguard? Very rare. Thanks for sharing.

Regards,
-serge-

There also was multible cavities to the molds so you may have a flaw on one and not the other .

True but why do we see 99% of the examples with the famous flaw?

Good point

Is it absolutely certain that it is a flaw, and not part of the original design - seeing as it apparently appears on original pieces by both Eickhorn and Horster?

FJS

Excellent thread!!

Sorry I am so late on the scene, but what an incredible piece! That must be about as early as they come!
Thanks for posting this Ron!
Johnny

This is the reason that my wife and I always take our camera to the shows. You never know what you might see or find that you may need a picture of incase you can't acquire it or need to have a record of an unusual item.
It also helps when your wife is the official photographer for the show.
Ron Weinand

Excellent thread. I've always wanted this type of dagger but never felt comfortable with my knoweldege on these. The info here takes away some of the aprehension.
Who actually wore this type of dagger? Just railway officials? What ranks? Are there any photos in wear around?

Ron did this type of dagger also come unmarked as in NO M/M.Great photo's and info.I wonder how many were passed up as not original's

Yes, the unmarked examples, in all cases that I have examined, were unmarked Horsters. Careful examination, when compared to marked Horsters, can make the id easy as there are certain characteristics that only are seen in Horster manufactured pieces. Horsters are different from Eickhorn manufactured pieces when compared side by side.
Ron Weinand

"Who actually wore this type of dagger? Just railway officials? What ranks?"

These dagger were owned by the Bahnschutz (railroad special protection force) Or a police units.

Eric are you sure???? ( I really don't know)
I have some old original Eickhorn paper work I think invoices etc..... I will have to check..

Original document from sept 20th 1939
To Carl Eickhorn fromthe frim C. Hagenest & Arnold Hamburg. The Concern (German Railway management Hamburg)
In the letter they are ordering 20 railway leader daggers...

I have other documents were they are ordering pistols, bayonets etc....One is sort of cool, dated 11-15-39 were they are ordering daggers for the officers of the (occupied territory of Poland) Another one were they are ordering a extra scabbard!! I would bet the old one got all dented ..

Great stuff Damast! -serge-

Eric and Damast, thanks for your replies. Period documents, , can't argue with those. Now all we need are the photos.

Postschutz & Bahnschutz were police units. The common postal workers (to the best of my knowledge) never wore daggers, nor did the commor rail worker. Why would a conductor or bag boy be permitted to carry a dagger, or any kind of side arm? The German word “schutz” means protection. Logic would lead me to think these dagger were ONLY issued to protection authorities, and not a ticket taker.

Yes,agreed of course....

There are photos out there. I think one was on this sight not to long ago.... In wear..