UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons Army, Navy, and Luftwaffe Forum Rare maker?

Here's a dagger with a maker i've never seen before. Any comments would be appreciated.
regards, Dan

....

....

....

....

....

Not for me I am afraid, a maker that has never been observed before on an army dagger, with a tampered with or altered Generic A, or possibly a reproduction crossguard, a Horster pommel and a slant grip that pre-dates all of the fittings.
Somebody has been busy .

I second that Degens! A few good parts....Kevin.

Wilh. Wagner is listed as making SA's,NSKK's,HJ's and DLV's.Don't know if they made Heers at all.

Not for my collection if it was dressed differently it might warrant another look but as it sits not good IMO

Can we see a picture of the tang, a picture showing the tang hole to crossguard fit and a inside pommel shot. Thank you.

Hello Mikee,
Here are the pictures you asked for. Any opinion is appreciated.
Regards, Dan

...

...

The maker mark compared to another Wagner. To me they look identical.

...

...

...

...

As you probably already know that is a Horster made pommel. There is just something about that Generic crossguard I don't like either,the tang hole in it looks strange too,kind of "crooked" and the birds head is "tall"? Mark does look just like your other example but alot of MM's were used post war. Lets see what others say? Kevin.

Thank you but you missed a picture. A picture showing the tang to crossguard fit, a top shot of the crossguard seated on top of the tang. If you don't mind a closeup of that eagle head would be nice.

It's hard to tell when you look at something that is not text book, a lot of the feel about this dagger depends if you are just a text book collector or can accept some degree of the unusual, I'm of the latter type of collector and tend not to dismiss things I cannot readily explain. It has a slant grip and on a text book dagger that means a tapered tang, on this point I've seen too many armys with slant grips with this exact style tang, in of itself that's not a red flag, it's clearly got a Horster pommel, so what, perhaps they bought a few pommels from Horster, who knows. I'm no expert on crossguards so I will leave that one to those who closely study these, there are a few on this forum who are very experienced and have made the in depth study that is necessary to determine whether or not it is at the least an original item and not an out and out fake part, I personally feel it is O.K. The scabbard looks an original part as does the ferrel and grip to me, the only thing that to me is a little unusual is the length of the threaded portion of the tang, to me it looks a little short and certainly shorter than others I have seen, I'm not sure that it means anything just a small observation, perhaps it's just the direction of the photograph.
Finally I think it's to easy to dismiss something because it doesn't conform, I see no problem with the maker mark, over the years we have showcased on this forum a number of new makers that have at least within our collecting knowledge hadn't been seen before, I ask why this particular maker could not have produced a few army daggers, it's not bad just because it's not been seen before, nobody here can say with complete authority that this piece is bad and nobody has, the comments so far have been only that they would not want it in their personal collection, we need hard and fast evidence and some more open minded discussion, don't let this dagger fall by the way side, if I owned it and going by the pictures that I see in front of me I would not have any concerns.

Gary

Gary,

You and I think alike.

Well I guess I am going to classify myself as a textbook collector I don�t like the combination of parts they don�t make sense to me either that�s a new crossguard variation or a fake in the style of the generic A and I believe the later. An utter abomination IMO and a complete Frankenstein of real and fake parts. When we get the tang to crossguard picture Mikee asked for I think we will see some handy dremel work either way for me a complete thumbs down.

There is textbook and there is acceptable. This dagger to me is neither. I am still waiting to see a completely legit example of a period assembled army dagger by ANY maker which is fitted with a Generic type A cross-guard and a slant grip.

The only firm that I know of that used a Generic crossguard and a slant grip was Christianswerk ( I have seen 5 ) and all five of these daggers featured the same Generic B parts throughout and nickeled fittings.

If the dagger in question had all Generic parts or all Horster fittings it might be more acceptable to the non-believers but the fact that this dagger has a grip from 1935, a Horster pommel at least two years later and a very strange looking Generic type crossguard is enough for me to question the authenticity. We all know that variations do exist and I am as open minded as the next person when it comes to mixed parts but this many strikes on a previously unheard of maker is stretching my imagination I am afraid.

The maker mark however I do like and is very convincing. Can we also see a shot of the scabbard throat screw please.

As requested the following pictures:
- tang to crossguard fit
- scabbard screw

Regards,
Dan

...

...

Dan,
Thank you for the pictures. The tang to crossguard fit does not look bad at all to my eyes ( unless that is daylight on the underside, 2 pictures up ) but read into that what you will!. The inside of the slant grip however will probably be a different story.
The scabbard is a little more tricky, possibly a Holler or Generic.
Has the crossguard been cleaned up with an abrasive?, wire wool or similar or is it part of the casting.
I think that this is one of those daggers that will come down to personal preference, with good and bad opinions, ultimately it is the owner who has the final decision.

@ Gary, generally I am with you. By (most) collectors unknown items or configurations don�t lead automatically to a fake.

In this case, as already mentioned by very experienced army specialized collectors, the configuration of a slant grip, a H�RSTER pommel, a highly spurious crossguard and an up to now unknown manufacturer for army daggers imo makes the whole item really very questionable.
Regards,

Here is the afore mentioned Christianswerk that I think is owned by forum member Janos. Rebuffed by many collectors on various forums because of the Generic fittings and slant grip pairing. However, all examples to date have been identical from this maker and in my humble opinion is the only exception to the rule.

Comfort depends upon what one is collecting, IMHO.

Now, I am not any kind of expert in army daggers and don't know a Generic A from a Generic Z, but I do collect maker marks. If the mark is collectible and is probably ok, then, to me, the rest is just 'stuff'.

I have a really nice Eickhorn with non-Eick pommel, but does it bother me, NO.

Depending on the price, of course, I think that the blade is what it's all about.

The other mixture of parts, if really a sore point, can be fixed (I know that I am speaking heresy here). We all know that a lot of the daggers floating around have had parts swapped all over the place.

John

I would like to thank everyone fore giving his opinion. It has been very educational.

Best regards,
Dan