UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons SS Dagger Forum Is maker accepted or proven fake?

I have a 5 day inspection of an RZM SS dagger I received today. In Tom Whittmann's SS book, the RZM mark is shown on page 706 as being from the John Pearson collection. The RZM mark is 1196/38 SS. Fishers Quick Reference proclaims it to be a fake. Fisher claims the circle around the RZM should not be closed, but rather, open at the bottom of the circle. Ed Wusthoff's SA RZM mark is shown in Tom's SS book as a reference. What is the opinion on this maker mark. I need to make a quick decision and could use the help on this one.

Mark

Mark I have the same maker and code as yours.Looks the same as the one in TW's book.When TW was doing the book I wrote and sent photo's of the dagger,he wrote back he had a reference for that code for the book.He never said it was a fake and as you pointed out it's there in the book.There are different RZM with out the broken circle.Hope you get an answer.

Thanks Ed, I really appreciate your quick reply. A lot of lookers but no responders! No guts, no glory!

Anybody else know about this mark?

Mark

Here it is...any comments?

Mark... I've just been looking through past threads and there doesn't seem to be enough conclusive evidence either way.

Mark, that's a tough call and I personally wouldn't know what to do with such a dilemma.

What's best ? It could be 100% original but then, would I take any chance that it could be post war ? I just don't know.
Personally Mark, go with your "vibe" or gut feeling. If Wittmann says that it is original, then I guess your chances are very limited, though he is not without any reproach.
Fisher isn't perfect either, he tried to sell me a Water Custom dagger several years ago that was fake ( Craig was with me at his table ). Not blaming him since he really thought that it was real but Craig told him otherwise..........and so did Wittmann.
I'm certain that you have enought experience with real SS daggers to see the difference with a repro. If you sincerely think that it is alright, then BUY IT !
Don't bother about what Fisher says, remember that he doesn't have the answers to everything.......the Water Custom.

Mark, in case you missed it, there is also another dagger pic, from a different collection, with this mark on page 172.

Regards
Russell

Thanks for the comments gentlemen. After careful review, I have elected to keep it and I believe it is simply an unidentified maker.

The etch is extremely nice on the motto side.

Thanks again...maybe one day we will know who made them. There are no tang marks at all. This example has plated crossguards, aluminum grip eagle but nickle silver scabbard fittings and painted scabbard.Fits like a glove. I have spoken with other members with exactly the same configuration.

Mark

There are relatively quite a few of these around. Do a search of the forum archives for more info.

quote:

Originally posted by kingtiger:
Thanks for the comments gentlemen. After careful review, I have elected to keep it and I believe it is simply an unidentified maker.

The etch is extremely nice on the motto side.

Thanks again...maybe one day we will know who made them. There are no tang marks at all. This example has plated crossguards, aluminum grip eagle but nickle silver scabbard fittings and painted scabbard.Fits like a glove. I have spoken with other members with exactly the same configuration.

Mark

When I was digging around for info, the maker Klaas came up a few times. Might be a lead?

Mark:
I got got back home so I'm a little late on this thread. When I first started collecting my original book was Robin Lumsdens and I about went nuts trying to apply the "open/closed" ring RZM theory which is now believed to be without merit.
Why don't you bring the dagger to the SOS and have some of the more senior guys look it over?
Jim

I have seen that trademark several times and it is OK.

Dave

Thank you all...it is a nice one and I'm glad to have it.

I always wanted one with "SS" on the maker mark.

Mark

Mark, While John was more of a German pistol collector, he is also very astute when it comes to blades. If it�s in his collection I would go with that as some others suggested (and you have done) instead of Fisher. Who has some other errors that I would imagine will be rectified at some point as things progress. Regards, FP

Please post the rest of the dagger mark I would love to see it! I agree the mark looks good for that perticular maker, it looks like all the others I have seen posted on here in the past, never seen one in person though.