UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons SS Dagger Forum M36 Chain........

Here is a photo of Vic Diehl's Type X chain. Of the ones that I have examined, the burnishing didn't hold well on the Type X links. Whether it was the lack of pebbling in the background of the links, or perhaps the heavy nickel content of these assemblies, I'm not sure. Perhaps someone else would have a theory. You can see the same in Vic's chain as well.

Type II X bevelled connectors of my M36. The burnishing is just about hanging on!!

More info

Schonitz, I belive that one that you show is a Type II chain. The one that Vic has on here is definitely one of the Type X chains.

JR, Definitely a "Type X". Please see this:-
http://daggers.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/728099...380099113#9380099113

Which contains this!!

Cheers!

You are right on the money Sir ! Thanks for that close-up. A rare chain assembly and the burnishing is stunning !

That complete dagger is a killer !! Where did it come from ?

I completely missed the thread on the first go-around but do have a couple of observations: There are IMO at least three sets of dies, although I have to admit that Grumpy’s example has me a little puzzled. But from a single image I can’t (for myself) draw any conclusions as to what it actually is that we are seeing.

I’m inclined to agree with JR that the Type X/IIA probably has a higher nickel content. Because the artificially induced chemical darkening reacted with and bonded to the copper present in nickel silver to create the black background in the chain links. And they do seem to possibly have a less tenacious bond to the metal than most Type II (nickel silver) links. Likewise it is the more or less pure nickel plating on the steel based links that back then precluded a chemically darkened background although it is possible to use a paint to effect a darkening (which IMO would not be very durable). And over time on rare occasions I’ve seen painted links mostly on Type II’s but can’t say if they were period “touch ups” or not, while with some others to me they did appear to be postwar.

Steel could be used for for replacement links although it would have to be (or should be) nickel plated, and undoubtedly some earlier daggers were period repaired using later manufactured steel links. But that does not preclude a silversmith in Germany from making a period repair. And silver would probably be a better choice for more recent repairs because it is 1) easily available 2) would age to more closely resemble nickel silver than nickel plated steel. Which ties in with Houston’s observations regarding an unknown number of specimens with replaced links.

Beveled connectors require a unique set of additional dies to cut the blanks which have to be allocated to production, stored separately etc. etc. My point being that whoever made the beveled link chain assembles probably made them as complete chain link units instead of as just parts. If for no other reason than to maintain inventory control and to ensure that the parts were going to fit together.

PS: My compliments on some really nice daggers!!! FP

Fred, Appreciate the help on the Type X chains. I'm sure that there have been a few of these to go through dealers and collectors hands alike, thinking that they were Type II's all of these years. JR

Will try another photo of the skull link. Maybe this one will show better detail.

That's a little mo' better than the first one.

I found what appears to be an identical dagger to mine in LTC. Johnson's Vol. 5, P. 147 (1st edition). The chain assembly, center band and dagger, save the dedication, the same as mine. The photos are somewhat small, but I can clearly see the details, under magnification. Will try to post a photo of most of the chain.

I am bring this old thread back to life again fella's because, I wanted to hopefully jog some menories on this thread. I recently came across a chained ss. Being some what fimilar to daggers. I didn't have a big intrest in different types of chains out there on daggers. Until I read this thread I have learned a lot from this site. Anyway my intrest on X and I, II type chains has sparked some additional thought on who made these chains. I looked closer at their over construction and wanting more info on the chains. I did find anything on makers of these chains. I didn't see anything that was discussed in previous threads. Has anyone done any reasearched on how many companies made these type of chains? Were these independent from the dagger companies? Were the chain blanks rough stamped the hand finished. Were these skilled labors. Thanks for your help in advance

The chains were stamped, not hand embellished. There are no maker marks on any of them. Who made them is unknown and open to speculation.

Thanks Skyline Drive. Someone told me that one of the older dagger bibles(reference)had made some reference to a few chain makers. Unfortunately didn't get the books title.

Well perhaps someone else has a theory on who the chain makers were...

That's for your help skyline drive

here pics of one link from mine ss 36.

ss type II chain

another detailed chain 1.mod example

I did some more work with chain link manufacturers and metal stamping in general back with the NSKK “Hühnlein” Honor dagger thread. The name of F. W. Assmann & Söhne of course jumped out as a prominent leader in metal stamping. (And please don’t get me started on cast chain links ). My recollection is that there were one or two other names that were of interest. I will have to go back and try and reconstruct where it was leading before I reached the conclusion I did and stopped.

Originally I thought that the stamping was probably a one time pass through a punch press. Looking more closely at a Type II in steel I owned, now I’m not so sure. Looking at the SS rune link it is clear that the border on the link at the bottom was offset - and I’m going to have to think about how that might have come about (the other SS rune links in the chain are not offset). FP

Also one of the images from the original Type X (IIA) thread I posted of the “Type X”. Clearly a different set of dies. FP

Thanks everyone. FP Yes, I would like to learn more on this topic if you are willing to share with us here. So much research has been done on the daggers. I feel that there is very little published information on the rest of the dagger set.

JR really hit one here. Since this info is not out anywhere.
The schonitz dagger I recall from another thread, also had a unique rounder type grip.
So it should be clear from the evidence that there were 3 separate sets of dies. Not only for the "skull" link but also for the "rune" link.
This Type II-A must have been a very early, possibly initial very limited production dagger.

Very exciting discovery! Thanks JR!

-serge-

In the interim ............. a link to the original thread was posted in this thread as “Type X Chains”. Unfortunately the thread itself has apparently long since vanished into ‘Cyberspace’. And while the original commentary might not be retrievable. The good news is that besides the proof copy I just posted, I still have the original images for the thread. Back then I intentionally focused on the skulls for the thread - because to me they were the most obvious signs of different die sets being used. However, as has been shown, the Sigrunes are also an area of interest as is the entire topic.

SS expo1: Showing the septum in the nasal cavity with Vic Diehl’s dagger to the right.

SS expo2: Showing the Type X next to the Type II. At the moment I don’t recall the exact timing of the thread - but in any case the information for whatever reason did not make it into the Tom Wittmann’s SS book. Vic Diehl’s example of this very rare dagger, however, did make it into the book on page 152 and is displayed in full color. But (unfortunately) was misidentified as a “Type II”.

(On page 123 there is a brief discussion of the chain “Types” which I’ve always personally found confusing because the “Type II” chain clearly preceded the “Type I”. )

SS expo3: The Type II skull chain link in steel to the left with the earlier nickel silver version to the right.

SS expo4: The Type X contrasted with the Type I. Fairly noticeable in this image is the high relief of the Type X skull, and the difference in the design of the holes made for the connector links.

ss expo5: Shows the Type II in steel contrasted with the Type I. For some reason image ss expo6 seems to be missing. But I’m sure I have the original working images that have been saved.

ss expo7: Shows to the left the hand stamped SS Kulturzeichen as seen on the back of the Type II links - versus the machine stamped example on the Type I to its right. Besides the different design and execution of the links. The machine stamped Type I SS Kulturzeichen also has a story to tell. FP

Excellent F.P.!

Very interesting discussion .


LH 600

Excellent work FP!!! I can't tell you how many people that I have come across thinking that the X and II chains were faked. I also had people say when the see the septem in the nasal cavity. OH oh that a fake. That's a tell tale sign of a fake chain. The other comment is.. I did see that in the (blank) dagger book so It's got to be a fake. I am also looking at the space between the SS ruin and the embellish back grounds on the chains. Maybe I am way out there, but I think there were only a few chain producers. I see it in the X and type II chain a real hand crafted item. Paul

Type X

Another type X. I don't think they are so rare.

Better photo of a type I.

Thank You Skyline! I have not seen the first image before, and it always helps to look at as many examples as you can, although I strongly suspect that the dagger has been overcleaned at some point in its history. As for the second image it seems to be a reposting of the dagger that Schonitz posted a little earlier in the thread - but it does not hurt to see the image again for comparison purposes. I also would like to compliment you for the very well done image of the Type I. It does show the detail that is present to good advantage.

Rarity I think depends on your point of view. As a standard production item I think that the Type X is the rarest of the non-special order daggers. And unless I’m mistaken, it does seem to be much rarer than the Type I, which I think used to be considered the scarcest standard production model of the chained M1936 dagger(s). FP

Wow! Excellent work guys! Thanks for the photos and work on this. In your research on chains mfg companies. It sounds like only a few were making these chains. Did the same companies make both type I, and II, X? was the switch over due to materials, cost, or a labor issue? I really like the hand work on these II, X's

Judging from the links themselves there seem to have been less than a handful of chain makers. With really only three identifiable patterns seen so far (a fourth has been mentioned which is still a [?] based on what is still very little evidence). The underlying issue behind the changes in materials was the fact that primarily copper had been withdrawn from civilian sector manufacturing - being conserved for production for the Wehrmacht. And dagger makers were therefore forced to use substitutes.

Copper and nickel were more costly as materials. But the steel links would have been more costly to produce in terms of overall labor to produce, and machine/tooling wear and tear. To illustrate that aspect of it here is the chain link that Skyline posted. Showing how either the die is breaking down, or where a small piece of loose steel became affixed to the die and subsequently detached during the stamping prior to electroplating. FP

Here is another type X.

Better angle of a type I.