UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons SS Dagger Forum Transitional SS Eickhorn:

I am the owner of a trasitional Eickhorn dagger with this logo. Note the absence of the word "Original". Administration here refuses to accept this as a legit. variant:

http://daggers.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/748105472/...810014225#1810014225
This SA transitional just sold in the above thread is also lacking the word "original": Please note the second picture down.
Granted Mine is an SS and this one is a SA:

First I am not posting this to take anything away from that beautiful SA dagger that has just sold.
MY point is how can a SS dagger with out "original" be questionable but an SA dagger with essentially the same logo ok? I have noted a few(very few actually) SAs without the word "original" since I started collecting but I have never seen another SS dagger without "original". If anyone has an example please post it.
I brought this SS dagger to the SOS two years ago and had it examined by several prominent dealers/collectors and every one stated it was a perfectly legit. Eickhorn SS dagger. I am bringing this up here in public to hopefully get this resolved. I will post additional photos if necessary but all you're going to see is a typical 33 SS dagger in exceptional condition.
If you have an opinion or additional information please post it.
Jim

Jim,

I isn't "Administration", It's me that thinks that trademark needs a lot more explanation.

Here is what it is supposed to look like.

Here is 1937

And another

The postion of a trademark on a blade can change small amount based on how the acid resist template was applied.

In my experience, a template of a trademark itself does not change. They were cut in one piece so a key missing word and a change of distance between the RZM and the squirrel just does not happen by accident or oversight. The entire template could have been ruined, but an otherwise correct template with these faults??

This would be like finding a Ford Crown Vic with the chrome/plastic thing on the trunk reading "Cron Victoria LX" instead of "Crown Victoria LX"

Anybody else ever seen a 1937 or 1938 SS dagger with that trademark.

Dave

Ok "Dave"!!
I'm well aware of the fact that there are transitional SS Eickhorns with the word "original".
I sent you pictures of the rest of the dagger and I'm awaiting your response as to what's wrong with it. There are plenty of things that are definitely right about it. If this is some kind of fake where are the other examples? No one in their right mind is going to go through the trouble of making one fake!
How do you explain the existance of SAs both with and without the word "Original?
I am hoping others will voice an opinion here.
Jim

Jim,

Eickhorn used different trademarks on different daggers and I aware of the SA variations, but your post in about a specific single 1938 SS blade.

I got the pictures of the dagger, but my comment is directed at that blade. I have not seen that trademark before and it goes against what I know about SS dagger trademarks.

Dave

Dave:
I haven't seen another one either but what does that mean? Eickhorn only made one? Some faker only made one? This doesn't add up!
Aside from that you have pictures of the whole dagger. What else specifically is wrong with it?
What makes you so sure that the SA variants w/o "original" are ok?
Jim

Jim,

See my posts above. That about covers my thoughts on the blade and the trademark.

Dave

Maybe it's the photos, but there appears to be differences in the trademark on Jim's dagger and the SA in the for sale section. For instance, look at the head of the squirrel. If I were going to question the authenticity of either of these daggers it would be the SA that causes me more concern. However, that begs the question... who would fake an RZM SA dagger? It couldn't be for the money. Until recently they haven't been worth all that much.

I think a more plausible explanation for the lack of the word "original" is that the wax template may have become damaged and the German craftsman, being frugal, simply removed or filled in the damaged portion.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave Hohaus:
Jim,

Eickhorn used different trademarks on different daggers and I aware of the SA variations, but your post in about a specific single 1938 SS blade.

I got the pictures of the dagger, but my comment is directed at that blade. I have not seen that trademark before and it goes against what I know about SS dagger trademarks.

Dave[/QUOTE
So what you are saying here is that since you have not seen this trademark before it must be wrong. Isn't this the same rational that you've criticized others for in the past as in other words "I don't like it so it must be bad". response. If this is a bad dagger there surely should be other questionable features yet you aren't finding any? I will go ahead and resize some of the pictures I sent you so others can see them and judge for themselves.

Picture 1: Note the NS eagle and the plated crossguards. Both correct for a transitional Eickhorn:

Picture 2: I can try to get addl. pictures but I always have trouble with shiny items. The etch is deep black and the blade exhibits virtually 100% crossgraining:

Picture 3: The scabbard painted which is correct with a 100% unquestionable vertical hanger:

Picture 4: The back of the hanger which conceals the typical Eickhorn "fat lip" of the upper scabbard fitting:
Additional Points:
The tang has the forger stamp of CAH who was Eickhorns father-in -law.
The dagger exhibits signs of very gentle use which is of the type that would be expected of a piece that was only worn infrequently.

I would be glad to take additional pictures if it is deemed necessary. Perhaps others will venture some comments now the the whole dagger is pictured.
Jim

Excepting the lack of the word "original" I don't see from the pictures anything else different from accepted variant markings.

To the best of my knowledge there are only two PUMA SS daggers known to exist. That does not mean they are not real.

Is there anything else that would lead one to the conclusion that this is not a real blade and perhaps a variant not seen so far? After all, Eckhorn was the most prolific supplier.

There could be several reasons one could cite when questioning a blade, but the general consensus on the site as I understand it is that you must state what is wrong, not simply that it has not been seen before. Is that not correct?

Seems to be good from what I can see in the pictures and I think it has already been seen in person by Tom W., JR and several others at a major show and given the OK.

I'm confused, but then again, I am getting older and maybe that's part of it.

Mark

Hello Jim, I have a transitional NSKK that I bought from Houston a couple years ago that is lacking the "original". Can post a pic if you like. Question, is the blade the proper length and is the end of the motto the proper distance from the crossguard? Regards, Leipzig

Thanks to all for your comments. The blade is well within the specs. for a political dagger and additionally it is tang stamped with CAH the mark of the forger who was Eickhorns father-in-law. I will continue to wait for any real information the indicated this dagger is anything but a genuine pre-1945 dagger. I know where it was since the 60s. IMO: No forger at that time would have had any idea what the signifience of the CAH stamp was.
Leipzig. Thanks for you offer to post your NSKK example. But apparentely these are accepted by Dave as good but based upon what I don't know.
Jim

Mark,

Mark you are correct. The only difference in the blades is the missing word "original"

The rules: You must say why you question something and my reason is that the trademark in question is not like others of that year.

When there are variations of trademark more than one has shown up. Look at the Eickorn 1937 SS marks. One version, with the squirrel, is shown above twice. The other, without the rodent or "Original" is below, twice.

Perhaps other blades like it will turn up and prove it to be one of many, but as I said at the top of this thread, it needs explanation.

Mike,

My understanding is that the wax template or acid resit was a sheet of wax with the motto on one side and the trademark on the other. It was folded over the blade. We see trademarks slightly off center (like the first 1937 mark above)or slightly rotated and there is always a corresponding offset or rotation to the motto.

I am certain that far worse mistakes were made by bad application of the templates, but that they never made it out the door. As for repair to a template, it would be very difficult and time consuming to modify the wax, both front and back without later showing traces on the blade front or displacing the motto. Besides that, companies have no tolerance for workers monkeying with trademarks.

Dave

Second

"When there are variations in a trademark more than one has shown up".
I think it's also fair to state that when repros are made more than one has shown up.
I am waiting for anyone to produce another example of this variant. Also you need to keep in mind that this blade was definitely NOT Eickhorn factory forged (CAH again) and it's impossible to state with certainty that the etch was even Eickhorn factory applied.
Jim

If you look on page 351 of Tom Johnson's book, German Daggers of World War II, Volume II, you'll see the reverse of what Tom Johnson describes as a "1933 Pattern SS dagger, post-1938 manufacture", the obverse being on the previous page. Although mislabelled in the caption as having RZM code M7/66, the dagger does, in fact, have the 941/38 SS code surmounting a squirrel-with-a-sword, without the word "Original".

Earlier this year, I myself purchased a transitional Eickhorn with the same logo configuration on this forum . It has the Hartkopf "CAH" forge mark as does Jim's (per an earlier post on the topic). I'll try to post the seller's photos of it, which aren't very good, but I can't do any better with my current camera.

Thanks for the information Hoel: Perhaps I can get TJ to tell me where he got his information. Please note he is stating post 1938 manufacture not post war!
Jim

Jim can you tell us how far the motto is from the crossguard on your dagger the last E of Treue is normally 25 mm from the guard face it looks like it might be 30 ish
Leipzig asked this above but you didnt respond to that part of his question

AJ:
You are correct. it is closer to 30MM than 25MM.
Jim

The original specification, which was for the SA dagger called for a 40mm gap between the last letter of the motto and the top of the blade. This was not followed even in the earliest daggers.

I have measured 51 SS daggers - 28 early and 22 RZM. Not counting the Eickhorn Rohm/Himmlers:

The shortest distance - a Schuttelhoffer - 23.71 mm

The greatest distance - An EP&S 26.03

Average of 48 daggers 25.31 mm

The three Eickhorn Himmler/Rohms 36.05 mm, 36.21 mm, 34.62 mm

Not that in the case of the early K&M & Jacobs, the average of 25.4 mm was from the exclamation point to the top of the blade.

Dave

Dave,

Did I not show you, at the MAX Show, an SA Dagger which had the 40mm gap between the inscription and the forte?

FJS

I see nothing wrong with this dagger from what I can see. A rare TM that's all--IMO. Just ONE red flag is almost never conclusive-there usually are a lot more.

Interesting discussion. Mine has the CAH mark on the tang, but also an H mark

Maker mark:

Thanks for the comment Houston:
I will probably bring this dagger to the SOS again and make sure everyone who wants to look at it has the opportunity. Everyone; If there's anything else I can do in the meantime with pictures or answering questions let me know.
Jim

I might add that ANY raised tang mark on an SS/SA/NSKK/NPEA dagger is IMO a VERY strong indication of an original blade. I can't recall EVER seeing a fake with this feature in over 50 years of looking. Also, fake blades are almost always narrower where they meet the cross guard and a trained eye can see this right away.
Some originals of course don't have these marks. Also-the blade could be altered in some way. But--raised tang marks are a feature that I always like to see.

Thanks Houston for the info.
I always thought that my RZM SS EM was 100% original but I didn't know about the raised tang mark property.
Here are pictures of my RZM SS EM taken apart.

2

3

One question concerning those marks on the tang, why does both blades have the same marking when they're from two different RZM maker marked ?

Here's mine for a comparaison.

5