UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons Miscellaneous Dagger Forum postal dagger opinions wanted

I do not like color of a blade. Such variant of an eagle on grip is allowable? It is a good dagger or a fake?

2

3

Ilya, P.WEYERSBERG has been the only maker of those postal protection leaders dagger. The blade seems to have a very smooth spine but generally I cannot see any red flag overall. The makermark looks like the ones I have seen on period blades. The eagle is crisp, why do you think it is a variant? The crossguard, wooden grip and scabbard are exactly like I have seen on those period ones coming by. What I can see from the pics it is a nice conditioned period postal protection dagger. Naturally an in hand inspection cannot be compensated by pics.
Is there any marking on the underside of the crossguard?

Thanks Wotan. A spine really very smooth. You are right. I have some photos of eagles. In my opinion they little bit others. On grip, an internal surface of the top detail and inside crossguard there is figure " 7 ".

2

One more difference

and

Ilya
Happy for you to use photos from my site but would appreciate you mentioning the fact
Regards
Paul

Thanks Paul! In my collection of photos your photos take a significant place. I always try to compare subjects to the checked up samples. I am sorry, that has not mentioned you, but I really do not remember, whence I take photos.

Where are the top photos from ?

The dagger for self looks good to me , but i must agree with Ilya : the grip eagle looks strange to me , i only know the eagle below .

I took mine out and took a look. Yes, the eagle is definitely different. As the one of Paul is also a numbered one as yours (mine is not) and there were not too many daggers produced I cannot imagine that it is a variant. A close inspection would be necessary how it is attached. How are the swaz�s in the crossguard, are they real enamel (try carefully with a needle)?

some more photos

next

and next

Ilya,

I asked you where those photos at the top came from, and I would much appreciate and answer. They appear to be from the same place as the Hammesfahr photos.

Thanks
Dave

Hello Dave!
I have made these photos itself. I now have some interesting daggers, but I would like to be sure, that it is originals, instead of fakes. If on this forum to me will specify the certain attributes of that it is a fake it is better to me to return to their.

The grip eagle is not the familiar , i have never seen before.The swastika enameled is not original , the original enameling is fine and glossy.Was the dagger denazifed and is restored ??

It seems to me, that it is a fake.
Wrong eagle whom anybody before did not meet.
More dark color of metal details.
Dark blade.
Wrong hook on hanger.
Whether could such happen, what at all these differences it is the original?

cancel

Ilya, why do you mean this is a fake ?Parts or complete fake?

Certainly, if it was the forgery all parts of a dagger at least would be similar to original details. In this dagger the part of details is not similar absolutely. But there are no sources in which such variant of a dagger would be described. All parts of this dagger look as a single whole. Thus all of them are numbered and is absolutely exact, that it have made not yesterday. I would like to hear as much as possible opinions.

Ilya, the real pics you made (contrary to the scans) let me think of a fake dagger. The eagle has an untypical color/finish for postal daggers and the finish of the crossguard also seems to be significant different to known originals.
Summing up the smooth spine, the strange eagle, the differing crossguard and the different clip it might be a total fake. The strukture of the wooden grip in the pic seems to be identical to period ones. So I think a close in hand inspection is necessary if it is a total fake (I do not believe it is one of the early well known fakes) or a parts dagger one denazified.

Frederick J.Stephens "Reproduction? Recognition!".The text from the book. Already it seems to me, that this dagger not a fake, and the original. If it is valid so many variants were, why nobody can show something new?

Ilya, although there is no other book like R?R! it is a book from the early days of collecting daggers and therefore has it�s weak points.
IMO here is one.
I don�t want to say impossible as this should be a strange word for serious dagger collectors, but up to now I have never seen doubtless period examples with inlaid emblems or period daggers without grip emblems (NOT those denazified ones!), no period leathered scabbards and no solid leather body scabbards.
What I have seen are "only" these numbered ones and the unnumbered ones which also (it is said) are a little different in length.
It might be that there are not shown varations as they are not in existance.
I definately do exclude the extremely rare variant of the dagger with a single leather strap hanger with clip (like 1 mod RLB leader) as 1.) it is extremely rare and 2.) imo not a variant of one and the same dagger.

Hi Guys, Is that clip in the second picture the correct clip for a postal? I see it has the DGRM in box but it also has a circle to the right of it. Is that really an exceptable clip too? Tiep

Yes, probably it nevertheless a fake. Some more photos. Me has surprised, that crossguard inside empty. And should be?

and

and 2

and 3

and 4

And here some photos of other dagger. It is similar?

next

next 1

next 2

next3

next4

Ilya,Both of your daggers are very good fakes.IMO

I continue to study this interesting question. Especially I was interested with that fact, that recently there were many subjects of such type which are presented in my photos. Back about this type anybody nothing heard 2 more years, and today many recognized authorities recognize as its original. But there are at least two interesting features of these daggers. I wish to tell about one of them, about the second I shall not speak, that there was any secret. For some reason all daggers with a similar bird have numbers which consist of a set of such figures: 6, 0, 4, 1. Sometimes figure 6 overturn and figure 9 turns out. I did not meet other figures. Sometimes there are four-unit numbers which begin with figure 0! How it was known, what numbering remains four-unit? The further I am interested in this question, the it is more at me than questions. If it is a copy, very high quality. But most likely it is a good copy

You are only leaving out 5 numbers(2,3,5,7,8) that could make any number between 1 and infinity. Of course the numbers you show are going to come up all the time