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

Blades as well as other parts were often sub-contracted to blade or other specialty firms. Tang marks are sometimes the marks of those firms and sometimes indicate different time frames. The entire story of the tang marks has not been told and we may never know what some of them mean. Whatever they mean IMO they are a VERY positive indication of an original blade.
A very fine dagger you show there Pat.

There were far few forges than there were makers of daggers. Forges like that owned by Hartkopf supplied more than one maker.

Tang marks are clues. As Houston says, the entire story of what they mean is not known. Some daggers have none at all.

Dave

Thank's for the info guys.

SA Eickhorn Transitional. starky

SA Eickhorn Transitional Maker Mark without "Original". starky

SS Eickhorn Transitional that has a good chance of being a reproduction. starky

Lots of Eickhorn trademark variations, especially in the 1937-1940 timeframe with rzm pressure to go codes only. Here is a 1939 variation without the word "original".

So , correct me if I am wrong, because of the absence of the word "original" on Jim's dagger , it supposed to be a fake?
Rob.

Rob et al:
I guess that's what Dave thinks. I visited Bob Hritz,a very experienced dealer/collector yesterday who most of you know and brought the dagger along for his careful and considered review. Bob told me that this dagger is 100% correct and he has seen others without the word "Original" over the years. He also stated the dagger wouldn't last 5 minutes on his table at a major show due to it's extrodinary condition.
Okay Dave:
Either T Wittmann,JR Meda,Gailen David, Paul Vondrak, Houston Coates and now Bob Hritz are totally wrong here or you are. Which is it?
Jim

Hey Jim, don't forget I tried to buy it right off the bat before you even let Gailen see it! (He really liked it). Damn gorgeous piece! JR, P VON, and my self were more than impressed with this one. Don't need to be a genius to see that's a winner!

Fast Eddie.

Jim M
Why do you care so much whether Dave Hohaus blesses the dagger/mark or what. In my
opinion, I could care less if Dave ever blesses one of my daggers! If the others say it is good, then be satisfied and forget what Hohaus says. Ron

Rob NL,
When Jim first showed this blade some years ago, Jon Shallcross said that he thought it was post-war because of the absence of the word "original" for that year. Since then I have looked for a similar blade of that same year and not found one. Also, the motto is positioned where I would not expect. See my posts earlier.

Jim,
You say that the motto on your dagger is about 30mm from the crossguard and that does not match everything I have ever seen. See my post above about measured distances above.

But as Ron said, why not just ignore what I think and move on ?

Dave

Dave:
I'm not going to move on. Nothing personal but How come everyone else doesn't have your problem? What credentials does John Shallcross have when compared to the others I listed above? As far as I know he hasn't been around the hobby for years so I really don't care what he thought as he had no proof either.
BTW: I don't find this matter humorous at all. You've made a serious assertion here and I'm treating it seriously. You're the one who decided to assemble a list of transitionals and refuse to include this example in your list.
I asked you a straight out question and I expect a straight out answer. Who is right? You or everyone else?

Jim

Jim,

Please read everything that I posted above and on the thread about transition SS daggers. I have declined to add it to my list saying that it needs further explanation concerning that particular SS trademark and now the motto distance. Same thing that I told you 2-3 years ago when you brought it to one of the shows.

Maybe Fred Stephens will add his thoughts in public on this.

Dave

I guess it's going to take Carl Eickhorn himself to tell you this is a legitimate period dagger before you believe it. I've read and reread everything you and anyone else has posted on this thread and you're still condemming what everyone else says is a perfectly good dagger without one shred of proof. The motto is 30MM from the grip rather than 25MM? What does that prove? "Original " being absent on an SS example is not ok but it's ok on SA examples? What sort of convoluted logic brought you to that conclusion?
I keep asking direct questions and all I get are evasive answers.
Don't you think it's time you stood up and stated your case so I and everyone else can understand it?
I keep getting emails from fellow collectors asking me just what the hell is going on here.

The Eickhorn mark without 'Original' also appears on some HJ knives with a '39', '40' or '41' date on the ricasso. And some with a motto as well.

Regards
Russell

Russell,

It also appears on early Heer, Luftwaffe, Fire Officer and many later RZM SS daggers.

Jim

Only two "shreds": 1) that SS trademark for has never been seen before, and 2) the motto distance of 30mm has never been seen before.

Our rules say everybody can express an opinion on GDC as long as they say why. My two reasons are above.

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by jim m:
I guess it's going to take Carl Eickhorn himself to tell you this is a legitimate period dagger before you believe it.

It's a good dagger.

Ok Dave Lets see here:
"Never seen before" Bob Hritz stated to me yesterday that he has seen this logo variation before.
"Never seen before" I'm a faker so I'll just make ONE example of a fake to foster on the collecting community. I'm not even going to bother to go into detail as to what this would take and the associated costs involved in doing this.
"Never seen before" Apparentely this is something you've not seen before so you in fact condemn it. Personally I'm glad I have a mind more open then that.
Yes: Everyone on GDC is entitled to their own opinion as long as they explain why they hold that opinion. I've let the membership here decide which opinion holds water and and I think it's overwhelming.
Eddie: I'm sorry I neglected to state that you in fact made one hell of an offer to buy this dagger before Gailen David did. In retrospect I probably should have taken it and avoided this needless grief.
Jim

Jim M
As I said earlier, why don't you just accept the fact that all those others agree it is orginal and leave it at that. Going back and forth with one person that doesn't share that same opinion is pointless. Either you are satisfied with it or not. Ron

Jim, I don't think you have needless grief. I am more than shocked by the attitude displayed here by Dave.

I may be a little thick and slow these days but I can see why the hallways here are less populated. I really hate to say that...but this is way over the edge. This is simple outright, blatant stubborn behavior in the face of overwhelming other opinions.

With all due respect, I think Dave is dead wrong in taking this public position on such an accepted piece. Anyone can get into serious trouble when they start to believe their own PR.

PS...that's my personal take and I want to remain friends with everyone involved.

Don't taze me, Bro!

Mark

Ron:
I don't know you or you background but I'll try to make this perfectly clear. Dave Hohaus is considered by some to be an "expert" on the subject of SS daggers. Whether he is or isn't is a moot point.
I will settle for nothing less than an admission that he is wrong here and that's the bottom line. I will continue to use logic to make this point. I continue to ask for facts and all I get is an unsubstantiated opinion that the motto is misplaced by 5MM.
Mark:
Thanks for your support. Look for an email from me stating what I can't say here publicly.
Jim

I wish I would be a moderator, then I could delete the whole thread.

I badly want to stay out of this, but I always have problems keeping my mouth shut. In a feeble attempt at peace-making I would like to ask why this has to be so black and white? Why does one have to be "right" and someone else "wrong". I mean let us sum up the positions here:

Jim - Has a nice condition ss dagger that the large majority of dagger hobbyists would accept in their collection as an accepted pre-1945 example based on many (but not all) attributes. This is not so bad. Will there be 100% consensus? No, because some do not like any variation. Still a valuable and saleable piece.

Dave- Says the missing word "original" and the motto spacing are variations. Well, those are facts. I don't see where he declares the dagger to be post war, just that the variations need "explanation". Maybe a better choice of words would be "we need to see more of the same variations as further evidence before they become the textbook norm". The unemotional, scientific viewpoint. Not so bad.

An ideal purpose for a discussion forum is to discuss variation and present points of view (hopefully in a civil manner). So Hey! It's the Holidays!

Robin...Thats the way i read it.Its a piece i wouldnt be scared to buy and i agree Dave hasnt called it post war, just wants more fact before he feels confortable with it.

To turn things around a little here, if we are pushing for conclusive proof of originality on the transitional SS that Jim has then why on earth would we be accepting of these 'one off' makers of SS such as Backhaus which certainly don't come with any ??????

I for one would much rather own Jim's example.

Just my opinion

Robin,

You have a point.

Maybe a better choice of words would be "we need to see more of the same variations as further evidence before they become the textbook norm". The unemotional, scientific viewpoint. Not so bad.

That is exactly the same advice I have given Jim in private. I have looked for that trademark, without success, since this first came up about 3-4 years ago.

Jonathan, you are quite right about single examples. They will always be open to question.


Dave

Why do I continue to pursue this?

Because the implication is there that this dagger is post war due to Dave's refusal to include it in his list of transitional examples.
I thank all of you who have offered graceful "outs" here but due to the circumstances they are not acceptable.
Jim

Jim , if you are going to sell your dagger ; let me know , I allways like to but the fake ones

Rob:
I will contact you if I ever decide to sell it. Naturatully it will come with it's own "Certificate Of Non-Authenticity"!!
Are you joining us at the SOS in February?
Jim

Jim ;
I am planning to come to the SOS , I hope that I can make it .
Regards , Rob.

Hi Dave,heres one without "original",not in the best condition,nats

http://members.lycos.nl/stantheman/

This matter of the Eickhorn trademark, without the word “ORIGINAL”, is a bit of a brain teaser. I have seen some specimens having this feature (or NOT having it, to be more precise) over the years, and could never be really certain what I thought about them. The only point on which I am confident is that these items do in fact date from about the period of WWII.

The assembly and construction of these artifacts appears to me to be be performed to a high standard - no mis-matching or badly fitting parts. They seem to be as good as any pre-war constructed item, and some of them indeed show earlier period dates in the code etch. But why do they differ in having the Eickhorn trademark which is omitting the word “ORIGINAL”?

In my experience there is generally a real reason why something would change in its form to some distinctive variation, particularly so in the matter of a trademark. My late colleague, J. Anthony Carter, in his book about Solingen Knife Makers lists a considerable number of Eickhorn markings, and the bulk of these appear to be variations which co-existed during the same period: For example, the larger oval Eickhorn trademark which was used on Police bayonets, compared to the smaller version commonly found on the 1934- period SA and SS daggers were being used concurrently.

I appreciate that there is dispute about the “smooth tail” and “serrated tail” of the Eickhorn squirrels on the small oval design. Personally I think this discrepancy is because Eickhorn needed an extra etching template creating to support the demand for their products. I suspect that this variation is merely the result of the craftsman who created it, and has no bearing upon the particular blade on which it may be found.

In around mid-1936, when Eickhorn revealed their new logo - it was shown to be a rather modern form of the Eickhorn name - the name, of course, meaning “squirrel” - and it displayed the image of the squirrel holding a sword. The name “Eickhorn” was formed across the image with the letter ”i” appearing on the blade of the sword. Above this image was the word “ORIGINAL”, Eickhorn and squirrel image, and below the image is the word “SOLINGEN”. In the context of the Eickhorn trademark, the words “ORIGINAL” and the word “SOLINGEN”, allied to the emblem of the Squirrel become complete and component parts of the overall trademark.

Every example of this form of trademark, appearing on the company literature or in their advertisements, and also in the 1936 edition of their Catalogue, contains the word “ORIGINAL”. In the 1938 edition of the Eickhorn Catalogue the same form of trademark is retained, and in addition, most of the illustrations of the company products feature the words: ,,ORIGINAL EICKHORN’’.

All examples of the 1941 pattern trademark that I have seen include the word “ORIGINAL” as part of the trademark. I have an example of the Eickhorn Sales Catalogue from the late 1970s, and I append an image from the front cover, and also one of the interior pages. These show the simple form of the “1941-style” squirrel without any wording, but the name of the company is shown as “ORIGINAL EICKHORN”.

Unfortunately the catalogue only features line illustrations, and does not show the appearance of the company trademark on any of the blades, so I can only guess what the precise form of the trademark might be like. However, I would submit that it most likely contains the words “Original Eickhorn”. Most certainly, on the outside margin of the page, it features the words "Original Eickhorn / Solingen".

This brings us back to the mystery of the omission of the word “Original” on Jim M’s SS knife, and indeed on other specimens. I cannot believe that this is an error. Equally I cannot believe that this is an official variation of the trademark - because I am sure that we would have seen confirming evidence in the form of advertisements, or other ephemera, to support this.

The differing dates in the etched code numbers these pieces seems to suggest that this form of marking might have been in use for some considerable period. However, I think that is mis-leading, and it is my suspicion that these pieces are completely authentic parts, professionally assembled in the immediate post-war period.

The etching pattern was most probably produced on a carrier film or paper, for placement on the blade prior to etching, and that the etching department would have hundreds of these in store. Theoretically they should have thrown away their old templates once the contract was out of date, and replaced with a new date version. However, it is not unknown for companies to put obsolescent stock material on some shelf and let it become forgotten. Hundreds, if not thousands, of paper etching templates could be stored in a suitcase sized box.

It would be my guess that - in this particular case - Eickhorn commenced to complete their remaindered stock, for the purposes of sale to the occupation troops, and that they used up all their old, and obsolescent stock templates in the process of doing this. For some reason or other, they chose to have the word “Original” omitted from the trademark. This would have been easy to do - simply paint over it with acid resist and it would not become etched.

So that is my best guess with this mystery. Completely authentic, but post-war completion. So I think that this version of the trademark does have a position in the chronology of the Eickhorn markings, albeit an “improvised variation”. I consider that the same explanation may also apply to that other variation, the so-called “Rat/Squirrel” - where all of the name, and the sword, have been deleted from the image.

FJS

PS - My images were too large to load, so I have sent them to Dave in the hope that he can assist. Thanks Dave.

Fred,

You sent text documents, not images.

Dave

Dave,

I have just sent to you 3 images. Hopefully the right ones, this time.

FJS

Nope - the files end in ".txt"

I could say a whole bunch but at the end of the day this dagger looks fine to me and I would be happy to own it or add it to a collection, cheers, Ryan Hobbies become complicated and items pass under the microscope when big dollars are involved.

Fred:
I think in fairness everything you've stated is really conjecture on your part. I do think you're calling this as you see and that's fine with me. You are also at a disadvantage in not being able to examine the dagger first hand.
However some other points:
I think we can agree that you can't prove something was never made or never catalogued. As you can say is an example has never surfaced up to this time. However; We know that's not the case because there are other examples.
How can this possibly be post war using your reasoning if the SA examples without "Original" are perfectly ok? I say the same thing I stated earlier: You can't have it both ways.
Therse is something about this dagger you can't see in pictures but the evidence is indisputable. This dagger was worn and shows the wear signs one would expect to see it that was the case if you know where to look. It is in beautiful but certainly not in unissued condition like the daggers that were appropriated out of the factories after the war or also are examples of post war souviner production. This is one of the reasons I've never been a big fan of unissued daggers.
I am going to stick with the opinions of those who have actually handled this dagger as I think they are correct and I'll probably bring it to the SOS again so anyone wanting to do so will have the chance. That's if I don't get an offer to buy it that I can't refuse in the meantime. They've been close but so far no cigar.
Jim

Jim,

I appreciate what you say, and I acknowledge that my comment is speculation, just like every other opinion on this thread.

I realise that I might be viewed as pendatic, but in my view the image of a trademark is not something to be tampered with at a whim - it is after all the corporate identity.

If the trademark is different, then there has to be a reason why it is different, but so far I have not been able to find a contemporary (pre-1945) reason to explain why this version of the trademark should exist.

I have just tried to load up my images (again!) and they are still too large, so I have sent them on to Dave in the hope that he can resolve this.

FJS

Can somebody explain why this variation is accepted on bayonets, HJ's and SA daggers but not on SS ?.

Also are there any examples on SA/SS daggers with this variation NOT dated 1938, from what I can see they all have this date.