UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons SS Dagger Forum Not all RZM daggers are the same....

I recently purchased a nice, very early RZM dagger. I think this proves that not all RZM daggers are "junk". I hold this one in the same regard as I would a maker-marked in the same condition. The nickel fittings are beautiful and the grip to crossguard fit is excellent. It has the thick, chunky grip and "heavy" feel. Very early, pre-RZM hanger which is a little salty. DRGM marked inside clip, ship's anchor with "s" in the middle stamped on outside reverse of clip. Perfect fit to the scabbard. 98% original paint remains on scabbard, nickel fittings very nice, and good ball. I really like this dagger. It has all the high quality of the early maker-marked pieces. What do you guys think about it??

Now for the mystery. RZM 188/35. Unknown maker. I want to see if any of this dagger's unique characteristics match those of a specific known maker. This dagger has some slightly different lettering in the motto. Notice the top of the T in Treue is curved. Some of the letters have more of a "curve" in some areas, that you don't find on most other daggers. I do not in any way doubt the authenticity of this dagger, rather want to find another that shares these characteristics. Crossguards are internally marked P.A. as commonly seen. Tang is marked with a "M" over a "V". Crossguard is district stamped "I". Any ideas? Lets get this 188 maker identified!

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

That`s a killer blade! a very nice piece indeed & I quite agree that some RZM pieces exhibit excellent quality. I have only 1 RZM piece (NSKK by ASSO) & it is one of my finest daggers.

V.

Should an RZM have a district marked crossguard?

I do congradulate you! I was going to buy it and back out like a dumb, dumb! It looks awesome!!! And is the same as an early maker minus the maker mark and anodised scabbards, same great quality..

SDP- Yes, it is ok for an RZM to have the district stamped crossguard on such an early model (I am told). Thanks Adam, I could not pass this one up. I actually like the painted scabbards better than the anodized because I think the finish will stand up to time better. Maybe that is because I have never owned an anodized one with 100% laquer, but those are very scarce anyway. Maker mark means less to me than the condition, fit and finish, and overall quality. I want to see if any other (known maker) daggers out there exhibit the same unique characteristics as this one so maybe we can get an idea of the maker.

Krause... have you got any photos showing the whole blade available?

SDP-

Here are a couple of the blade.

2

I feel that something is not sitting right here, in particular, the blade.

I think the RZM mark is dubious and from the photos, (although hard to tell), the etching on the motto doesn't look correct.

I don't want to scare you but I am interested in what other members opinions are.

I also think it should be maker marked, (I could be wrong), if the crossguard has a district number on it.

This is an unknown maker and most reference books will clearly state the makers in each district... but I guess there could be exceptions?

I'm also not too happy with how the ridge on the blade seems to "weave", it could be the camera causing this but...

I've lately seen too many mint or near-mint blades for my liking

I think maybe the blade was polished a bit. The motto and RZM mark did look alittle light but even if it was polished a bit I think it was worth what was payed, and we all know that many other RZM's by this unknown marker have been found, although the closed circle RZM does worrie some people many have been found on this version RZM.

I still don't know what to think... you may have a well made early RZM marked SS but I do know that you going to have an extremely hard time trying to identify the maker.

SDP-

I know there are some mysteries with this one. I was hoping that I could get some good info from fellow forum members who have either handled this same marked dagger, or own another (known maker) one with the same characteristics. I know Dave H. knows some about these, and I have been waiting for him to chime in also. There are many RZM daggers out there with a varied mix of features from during the transitional period. There were double marked daggers as late as '38 I believe. This one with only an RZM code. Strange. I do not doubt the authenticity of the piece though. The parts match too perfectly, wear is even. The blade does have some very minor greying, and the runner marks are correct. There is even some original crossgrain here and there, but not 100% intact. The seller told me that he shined it a bit with a little Simichrome, but only very lightly, and by hand, NOT Dremel. I do believe him. That must have made the crossgrain a little vague here and there. I have looked at it under magnification also. Looks right. The motto mystifies me some though. The letters are slightly different than I have seen on other daggers. Also, it is not exactly 100% centered on the blade. It is just slightly on the high side while looking at it with the motto reading across. Distance from the tip and the crossguard is totally correct though. Can you see that in the pictures?

Hi you guys have got to be kidding!? It is not because someone has questioned a piece that once was owned by me but rather because pictures of this dagger were forwarded to so many members here that expressed an interest that I have lost count. Not once did anyone offer that it might not be good. It was sold three times once to Adam who decided to back out ( understandandably I might add) Kory was the lucky recipient because he was the third in line. I had at least 7 to choose from.I have had nothing but positive comments about this dagger. Now that it is sold there are disparaging comments when it appears on the forum. This dagger is 100% authentic and unmessed with to any that might see it in person. The maker code is a known code(has been seen before)It is of the highest quality. Kory apparently disasembled it to clean it (as he likes them this way) it had green grime and consistant age. The blade, although appearing near mint exhibits runner wear and some graying comensuarte with the age of the dagger. The scabbard paint is obviously original. The vertical hanger speaks for itself. District stamps are entirely correct for this period of dagger. I have owned three myself. One was a mint PD Lunenschloss that I purchased in 1995 from Chuck Scaglione. Kory enjoy it, it is a nice dagger. Jeez! cheers, Ryan S

Any chance of showing the whole blade with part of the lower crossguard and grip showing?

I haven't come across the tang markings myself, maybe somebody else has?

Nothing personal here but both Whittman and Johnson will confirm that these early daggers did not have to be maker marked and could indeed be early transitional RZM pieces. I have not collected daggers in 5 years since I sold off my collection and I have only owned five SS daggers, two makers and three RZM pieces but even I knew that district numbers were and are correct. To say otherwise is ridiculous in my opinion. One would not expect to see them on late period plated examples. I have even seen them on unmarked blade examples. cheers, Ryan

Here are some answers to some things pointed out so far;

Trigger- The ridge is straight and even, it must be the camera angle. It is not near as high and sharp as found on the later RZM pieces. I agree with too many "near mint" pieces lately. People are getting good with the Simichrome and motto re-darkening.

Adam- Ryan did tell me about hand-polishing it slightly with Simichrome. That was one of the first questions I asked when I looked at his pictures. It did fade the darkening to the motto slightly. I plan to keep this piece long-term so I might clean and cold-blue the motto a little bit, like I know a LOT of other guys do, even though many will never admit it. Some of those daggers just have a too-perfect dark motto. Cold blue looks more natural than black ink.

SDP- I know the maker question will probably never be answered. I just hope so, and will keep trying. I just want to see if any other known-maker daggers have the same tang marking and letter style. Maybe upon closer review, it could be concluded that it is likely the same maker. I doubt we will ever be 100%, but it would help. Or maybe some day the catalog will turn up in Germany... Only 70 years ago, the info has to be out there somewhere.

Ryan-

Don't worry, I love the dagger! I just wanted to show it off and get some opinions. It is good to hear what people think, even if we disagree with them. It might help get some more info about the maker. That is my ultimate goal as I plan to keep this one long-term. I am waiting for some of the guys who have handled one of these to chime in...

Krause... can you get a good shot of the tang marking, I know it can be difficult.

Let me state for the record I have no doubt that this is real. Because I while only ever owning one, I have looked at many SS daggers over the years and everything about the examples I've seen with the 188/3X numbers are the same characteristics as this dagger expresses.

I have no doubt at all that Kory's dagger is 100% legit, crossguard mark and all. The trademark is correctly positioned. See below for a pic lifted from Gailen David's site a few moons ago.

Nobody really knows when the maker-marked one ended as they were not dated. There are RZM daggers dated 1934/5 that have the early quality fittings.

Dave

Hi I never use Simichrome I use German MAAS cream. It was quite dull when I obtained it and I used elbow grease and a soft cotten rag on the blade only. I first owned this dagger back in 1994 and it recently was traded back to me with some cash in trade to a friend for a nice maker marked example. This is the reason why I sold it below market.I know that I could have asked $500.00 more and would likely have got it. I have always sold SS and other items at good prices to forum members. I am not greedy and belive in passing on deals without sounding like the second coming.I do not own, nor have ever owned a dremel tool. I would send it off to Swanson first.Dave Bissell our moderator of the classifieds will vouch for me. Ask Paul Lakesidetrader about the near mint chained NSKK double etched Eichkorn that he obtained from me at a killer price. The best dagger blade that I have ever seen. 100% burnishing, crossgraining and almost zero runner wear at all. 100% plating to the crossguards cheers, Ryan

I like the dagger and I think it's fine. Very early RZM's and Transitionals were District marked up to about 1936? I had a Trans. Eick dated 1937 that was not marked.

SDP-
Is this the shot you are looking for?

11

Okay I think:

1) It's going to be too difficult to find out who the maker is... which was the point of the initial posting.

2) No problem with it being district marked, this was discontinued after 1935 and this is a stamped '35 blade. (Yes, I am going over what I previously commented on).

3) I think it's an original dagger too but the RZM mark doesn't conform but is consistent with similar daggers with that code from this period.

I think the best hope is to get a good shot of the tang marking. Other members may have the same one in their possession who could shed some light on the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by Krause:
SDP-
Is this the shot you are looking for?

No, I mean the markings on the tang.

Tang marking.

Crap,

Forgot the picture again !

FYI... all 188/35 and 188/36 daggers have the same floating M in the rzm circle just like the 120/34's. The 121/34's have one broken circle where the M touches at the bottom. The 807/36's have two broken circles below the M. Might be a clue here...

Does anyone have any information on the M V tang mark?

This thread is another example of why one must be careful in what they post. I also re read everything and a suggestion was clearly made that expressed doubt about the originality of the piece, specifically the word dubious. I take no offense because I respect the person posting and if there is one area of in Third Reich collecting that I am most comfortable in it is with SA and SS daggers. In the end the piece speaks for itself. cheers, Ryan