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

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.

Degens, The one I submitted for your site is dated 1939. Regards, Leipzig

pic

Here are Fed's pics

2

3

Thanks to Dave for putting up the images for me (and also to sdp over here, who also did some work on them for me).

The sole point I was trying to make with these images is that the word "Original" is a component part of the Eickhorn logo.

Of course, just to confuse the issue, the inside back cover of my 1970s Eickhorn Catalogue has a rubber stamped version of the 1936 pattern trademark - except that this has the word "Solingen" omitted. You can see it on Image 2, top right. Now what would we think if that version of the trademark appeared on a dagger?

FJS

"Degens, The one I submitted for your site is dated 1939. Regards, Leipzig"

Doh....so it is

The idea that everything is explainable is interesting but almost impossible with many WWII items. This WHY seems to be THE most important aspect to some and if it does not fall into the right little slot they reject it. Absurd in my view-- as those with vast experience in the hobby VERY OFTEN see things they have never seen before--and there is no known explanation--and there may never be one.
Eickhorn probably used more different TM's than any other maker and the exact times for each are not known--just approximate times--and we don't know why. One more Eickhorn TM not normally seen on an SS dagger in the absence of any other repro characteristics should ,IMO, be no cause for alarm whatsoever.
The very vast majority of repros have SEVERAL "red flags".
Fred speculates that this TM and the "rat" type were post war etched to make parts daggers after the war. Now why would they use two totally different ones? No answer--and this makes no logical sense IMO,--just like a lot of other things--but they still exist.
So now we have two more dagger types discredited by the minority--and it continues. What will be next?

I have no problems with these variations in maker marks from Eickhorn.

I just see them in the light of a company's evolution, logo's change with influx from art and culture. The trends need to be studied more in depth, but generally within the Third Reich it was an evolution towards the more simplistic stylistic design.
This can be seen in all parts of the industry, and with dagger manufacturers we see the same also with the Henckels logo, - Big twins with name, then small Twins only.

Why should Eickhorn be questioned for using several logos on their manufactured merchandise?
In my mind it was just the way they developed their logo in their "marketing department".
The logos omitting the word "Original" just lead the way to a (in my mind also nicer) cleaner logo, ending with the very lovely Rat

Just my 0.01$ thoughts...

Regards,

I just wanted to take a minute to thank all of you that emailed me in private to state that this dagger is unquestionably an original pre May 1945 example and one you would dearly want to have in your own collection. In answer to all who asked: NO the dagger is Not for sale at this time. I understand that some do not want to get involved in a public controversy and I respect your position.
I don't think these's much more that can be said here and as far as I'm concerned this thread can be closed.
Jim

I am just now reading this thread and must add that in my "motel buys" from the mid-1980s and into the 1990s I found, DIRECTLY FROM THE HANDS OF THE ORIGINAL VETERAN, two "Eickhorn Rat Tail" SS Daggers-both M36 Chain pieces with no Eickhorn or Original or Solingen TM, but with the 941 RZM code. One with knot showing wear. I guess they must not be real?
Ron Weinand
Weinand Militaria

That's correct Ron:
If certain individuals haven't seen one they're not real. You must have been hallucinating from breathing stale motel air.
Frankly I'm tired of this whole thing and would just prefer we drop it. When someone puts theselves in an untenable position I guess it's hard to admit it.
Jim

A lot of good pieces get ripped apart here.

FRED has contacted me and requested that I post this for him as he is having computer problems. While I understand what he is saying here, I must say that I disagree with his position as the daggers I bought from the veterans had definate wear signs and were issued and manufactured by Eickhorn during the late 1930s or early 1940s. Eickhorn's 941 code was used from the late 1930s into the war years and I believe that the "rat tail" TM was only used for a very brief period in the middle of these years.
JMO,
Ron Weinand
Ron,

I have a computer virus which is stopping me from sending messages to GDdotCom. Simply put this thing blocks up the "Reply" Button.

Could you please assist and present the following dialog, as an answer from myself. The thread of conversation is SS Daggers - Transitional SS (Jim M).

Many thanks

FJS

DIALOG AS FOLLOWS:

quote:

Originally posted by Rob NL:
A lot of good pieces get ripped apart here.

Rob, we are not here to "rip pieces apart" - we are actually interested in the provable, and explanable, accounts for how something may exist within our collecting field - even though it shows itself to be different, or "breaks the rules". I, personally, am intrigued by the trademark variation which Jim M has shown. Jim M, quite gallantly (and with fair-mindedness) has made his case for the piece and his belief that it is totally authentic. I do not argue with this belief, because I know that Jim M is totally open and honest in his opinions.

Ron W has put up some interesting information - namely that in the 1980s and 1990s his Motel buys produced some interesting items. To wit: SS Daggers with the "Rat"-type Eickhorn squirrel - and that these were in Model 1936 (chained) scabbards; and furthermore, that these pieces came direct from the veterans who brought them back. (My own example was in a regular, unchained scabbard but still it came from a veteran).

There can be no dispute about this - if this is what some veterans brought to Ron W in his Motel buy, then this is what he purchased, and direct from original sources at that.
So working from the position that these were original, genuine, veterans bringing in the souvenirs they had "liberated" in Europe, then we must accept that these pieces really were available in the time that these veterans were present in Europe at around the end of the war.

So - here is the punch line: Ron W states that his pieces were obtained in straight forward deals with veterans; and that they were contained in M36 chained scabbards. We must accept this as true. Therefore, because we know that the M36 chained SS dagger was issued with a blade that bore no trademark, then these pieces with "modified" trademarks must relate to some other combination.
As such, I submit that the high possibility is that these chained SS daggers were in fact combinations of original parts, and newly finished parts, all constructed out of original pieces.

It is my suggestion that other trademark variations may well have been influenced by the times in which they were put together, rather than a design feature or trademark modification. I think that this has to be the answer, because I cannot believe that Eickhorn would permit such ad hoc variations to its trademark to have been allowed.

These variation trademarks have, in my opinion, been created by circumstances beyond the remit of the Eickhorn design and publicity department. I think that these trademark variations are real, and should be part of the Eickhorn dynasty - even though they were not officially sanctioned.

FJS

I agree with Ron as usual. We were there when these pieces came out of the woodwork and they are period, period.
Just because the word "original" was omitted is IMO no cause for alarm. So what. It is important to note that NONE of these pieces with this TM have been found to have ANY fake parts. That is VERY important in my view. Eickhorn used just a whole lot of TM's for no real reason that I can see other than just a new version for a new version's sake--and there are many overlaps in the time period each was used.

Now most know that even during the years 1943 and 44 all Solingen firms were running out of so many parts that they were unable to produce daggers. There are many period newspaper ads requesting to buy a dagger. So now Fred is saying that low and behold--right after the war, 1945 ish., Eickhorn came up with all the real parts to make these daggers for the GI's and just used post war TM's. Not just one but maybe even three different ones. So -did they have these parts hidden so well that even they could not find them when they needed them during the war? I say Hogwash! That theory does not hold water.
Fred also says we KNOW that the M36 was produced with blades with no TM--and while he does not exactly say so he positively indicates that that was the ONLY version produced. Well Fred, we DON'T know that the only version produced had no TM or rather no RZM TM. In fact, many believe some M 36's WERE produced with an RZM marked blade. We can't prove they were and you can't prove they were not.
So--here you are again trashing more daggers without any real proof and with theories that really don't IMO, and the opinion of most experienced collectors, hold any water.
And No, I don't own any of these daggers.