UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons SS Dagger Forum '36s Gau'd and Why?

Having a discussion on another forum regarding a '36 pattern with gau stamped crossguard. I don't collect SS, never have, probably never will. That being said, i've never come accross an example as such, not in person, nor in my various readings (though none of SS blades).

What's the story with gau marked 36's? Why are the found almost exclusively on Type-1s? Are they ever found on M33's at all? What purpose did the gau mark serve? Is it plausable that they gau stamped crossguards were left over stock that manfucturers decided to incorporate into 36 pattern daggers for effiency?

Your answer is appreciated both by myself and another collector who own's a gau stamped M-36.

Thank you in advance friends,
Tom

My guess is either a parts dagger or the factory was using up spare parts. After all, these daggers were not destined for the collector market.

Most collectors, and dealers alike, feel that these Gau marked crossguards are fine.
However, there is also a very large group of people that thinks otherwise and say that they are simply "part daggers".
Whatever the opinions, if I had the opportunity to buy a non-Gau marked versus a Gau marked crossguard, I would take the one without the Gau marked and I feel that 99% of us would.
Why buy a controversial piece when you can buy a textbook original for the same price ?

One thing I've also noticed, every Gau marked SS Chained dagger that I've seen, ALWAYS had extremelly poor fittings ( crossguard to grip ), for this reason alone, I would pass my turn but that's just my opinion.

This subject has been kicked around for years. As far as I know, no definitive answer has come forth. I agree with Pat, generally. However, I feel the Gau-marked examples are likely period. Those so marked generally have characteristics in common. I would not pass on an M36 because of Gau marks alone. As noted, they are mostly, if not exclusively, found on daggers with "Type I" chains. The same holds true for the crossguards being marked "PA" internally and the original finish being blued ("anodized"). It may be some Gau leader or other big wig wanted them with Gau marks, for reasons of his own. The marks tend to be on early M36 examples. I don't have the statistics, but I think only certain Gau marks appear on them. I know of no presumedly authentic M33 SS dagger with Gau marks.

I have vet purchased daggers in this configuration over the years as have many other people. Since this is not “textbook” I would have to buy a dagger in this configuration for less since it would be a harder sale. If I were not worried about resale I would be very happy having a nice SS dagger with Gau marked cross guards in my collection. I have seen 33 and 36 models that were direct vet purchases.
Best Wishes,
Bob

Pat,
It has been years but the ones I have owned or seen and were definitely vet purchase had acceptable fit. If I were to see a SS dagger with a Gau mark and a poor fit I would call it a parts dagger.
See you at the Max!
Bob

Thank you gentlmen. A collector had posted a gau marked M36 on another forum, and my first thought was parts piece. Though after some research, what i've found suggests that these infact were period...though as mentioned it seems there is some debate on the matter.

Why though? Could it be attributed to large stocks of SA/NSKK crossguards left over since SA production was slowing down by 1936?? Would quality control for SS pieces even allow this to happen?

As i'm not an SS collector, this was the first time i've ever encountered one.

Anyway, thank you all for getting back on the subject.

Tom

Hi !

Several years ago I´ve got this dagger from the hands of the son of an departed veteran of the Schutzstaffel.
The dagger was well greased ...

The dagger was hidden in a Wehrmacht-Heer metal-canister for coffee in the cellar of the veteran´s house and was found while breaking up the household.

I know, this is not a text-book dagger, but it is, IMO, a legit-one !

I really also can´t say, what´s the reason why, there´re Gau-marks on the lower crossguard of M36´s actually ...

There´re some presumptions.
One of them is, that remainders of SA-daggers were used with the M36.

I talked with some experienced collector´s and all of them said to me, respectively the M36 there´s almost nothing impossible, what can also be possible ...

Even Tom Wittman e-mailed me, my dagger is OK !

Together with my M36 an M33 was found in the coffee-canister ! ! !


I bought from the son of the veteran also some books, a pistol holster, a map-case and some propaganda-material.

There also was the veterans-saber of WWI, his officer´s boots and some other stuff, but I was out of money that day ...

But, I was able to buy two nice SS-dagger´s, (the condition´s not really fine, but what shall´s ...), for a price, I could not say no !

You must know, I´m not collecting 3rd-Reich dagger´s but this two were a bargain !


Rgds.,

R.

P.S.:
The Gau-mark of my M36: "Westmark"

2

3

4

5

6

Most of the Type I's with a Gau stamp appear to be marked "Sa".

I'm not going to get into a discussion on the merits of Gau marked crossguards on SS Daggers, but if one looks closely at the daggers in this thread, you will notice how the curve of the guard does not match the curve of the top scabbard fitting. That's say it all for me.

I dug mine out. I haven't handled it in a while. The Gau marking is "Ns." The fit of the grip to the lower guard is near perfect, except for a small gap on one side. The lower guard fits the the throat perfectly, as far as the contour goes. The blade shoulders perfectly fit the lower guard. Not a hint of a gap when held up to the light. Additionally, the age toning of both guards appears to be identical. Unless you want to question the Gau mark in general terms, this dagger is perfectly "normal."

I'm with Ron on this and as I've said on my previous post, I'm yet to see a perfect fit on a Gau marked SS Chained dagger.

They all may be real but the craftmanship leaves to be much desire on these Gau marked SS.

Perhaps, the fact that they were using existing parts coming from ex-Rohm crossguards may explain the poor fitting, who knows ?

I would add my dagger came from the vet's widow. It had been stored in her attic for years. I would also note a severely damaged nickel-silver crossguard is something almost unheard of. So, replacing an unmarked guard with a Gau-marked one is highly unlikely. Plus, there are too many M36's with Gau-marked guards to indicate replacement due to damage. It would seem these are "legitimate" variations from the period, or someone made "parts" daggers after the war. Take your pick, but, based on most that I have seen, I think they are authentic and from the period. I have never seen one of these where other parts were questionable, but they could exist. The ones observed are perfectly "textbook," except for the Gau-marks, and they tend to have manufacturing traits in common. Perhaps the well-documented high demand for M36's when they were authorized came into play somehow, with production trying to keep up with demand. If the "TypeI's" are indeed of the earliest production, more than a few questions could be raised as to why some are Gau-marked.

I can't tell you how many times a veteran came into one of my motel buys with a bunch of daggers and had scabbards switched or grips switched or mis-matched pieces and remembered that during the war he was messing with his daggers and other guys had their daggers out and they aren't sure if pieces got exchanged.
So, when the vet has a piece you still can't be sure as to what occurred during its life in his possession.
JMO,
Ron

Every once in a very great while, you will see a Type I with its original matching heavily nickel plated malleable iron crossguards. The same type of finish as the chains. The problem is that the cast iron crossguard sockets (for technical reasons) only got a relatively thin (insufficient) layer of plating inside the socket itself. Which allowed moisture to penetrate, and rusting to start, eventually creeping out of the socket as it spread.

While it’s not a really good color match, nickel silver of course does not rust. And the readily available nickel silver Gau marked crossguards, taken from SA daggers, were sacrificed to be put on the much rarer and more expensive SS daggers. (While he is no longer on the forum, there was a very skilled individual who I understand was fairly good at taking off the “offending” Gau marks.) My point being that Gau marked or not, nickel silver is highly suspect, if a dagger has a mixture of nickel silver and nickel plated iron/steel fittings. With the exception of course, for those transitional (in materials) daggers where everything was factory plated to match. FP

Many moons ago, when I got this dagger, they were more questionable than they are now. Out of curiosity, I tried some unmarked PA lower guards, the type this dagger has, and some Gau-marked guards from the same maker. None even came close to a proper fit. The guard that came on it is a perfect fit. As a "plus" the dagger came with a "teardrop" hanger. I am not the least bit concerned about the originality of the dagger and wouldn't dream of having the Gau mark removed. It's the same old story, if such bothers you, don't buy. I wouldn't hesitate to buy another, if the Gau mark was the only "issue." Try swapping guards on any early political dagger and the odds are you won't get a satisfactory fit.

There are far too many Gau marked M36 SS daggers that come from reliable sources to doubt their authenticity. Regardless of the reasons postulated.

They are not parts daggers. They are not mismatched daggers. They are legitimate variations of the M36 SS dagger made during the Third Reich.

It's time to put this time worn falsehood to rest. The time to accept them as "text book" is long overdue.

And everyone knows it but some "experts" will not publicly accept the fact. One has to ask the question: "Why not?".

Bernie: If this were all true and we know they continued to produce M33 SS Daggers, where are all the M33 Daggers with SA marked crossguards? I don't ever recall seeing any of these M33s.
You really don't think the manufactures would only use SA Gau marked crossguards on M36 Daggers do you?

There are many unanswered questions with respect to TR daggers. This is simply one more to add to the pile.

The answer is nobody knows. Bernie makes excellent points and I agree with him. If someone owns one or more M36's with unmarked guards, he can diminish the value of daggers with marked guards by claiming they are "parts" daggers. This makes his dagger(s) more valuable, in theory. His sell, the marked daggers do not. I would like to know how many dealers or collectors would pass on an M36 just because the guard is Gau-marked. I can just hear at a "motel buy" or show: "Sorry, sir, I'm not interested in your M36 SS dagger because the lower guard is Gau-marked." Yeah, right! It would likely go: "Gee, I'd like to buy your dagger, but the markings on the lower guard are incorrect. Sad to say, that devalues it quite a bit. I can give you $200 for it." Afterward, it really does become a parts dagger if the lower guard is changed to an unmarked one, or the Gau mark is removed. So, who's kidding whom?

Ever try and sell a Gau marked SS M36. You can, but not for top dollar and usually not above the price you can get for the parts.
Its a hard sell period.
Too many collectors say buy the item not the story and when you have to make reasonable explanations for the mark, it creates some doubt in the average collector's mind. The same is with the M36 with an Eickhorn code 941. They exist, but most collectors won't pay the big bucks for one because when they go to sell it, its the same explanation process.
This is why textbook daggers in super condition are ALWAYS the easy sell and bring the most money.
I'm not making any contentions that stories with the pieces are wrong, I am just telling you the facts from a dealer's position. When you go outside the lines, the facts make the situation blurry and harder.

With all due respects Ron, if well known dealers like yourself accepted them as "text book", it would go a long way towards legitimizing them - as they should be.

On another forum in the very recent past. Two virtually new (still with paper tags) SA daggers surfaced with both showing some signs of rust and lifting at the interface of the wood and the nickel plated iron crossguards. My point here being that the rust was relatively minimal with a never issued dagger. Much less a somewhat "salty" or well used dagger. (Having in the very dim past seen boxes of discarded rusty iron crossguards myself at shows.) If somebody had installed recycled Gau marked crossguards on those two daggers I think that it’s fair to say that a number of folks would have been very critical of such a combination.

But with the Type I chained SS daggers of the same proximate vintage. And only some of the daggers - not all of them - this seems to be OK.

With using the "so many seen that way" argument not IMO being a valid way to try and legitimatize something that would not be accepted with a relatively common dagger. Much less a special order only SS dagger (but not all, only some of them).

PS: If guys have the NS/Gau marked daggers and enjoy them that's fine with me. But, with all due to everyone involved in the discussion, to make them the "textbook" example. Instead of the original heavy nickel plated malleable iron type IMO crosses the line. FP

IMHO these are absolutely fine and they ARE in the textbook, have a good read of Wittmann's reference. Sure there are some who don't like them. So what? That does not make them less real.
As far as value, that is based on market forces.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but the only maker I am aware of that used iron guards was Helbig. To my knowledge, they did not make M36 daggers. The only guard materials I'm familiar with on M36 daggers are solid nickel-silver and plated zinc-based metal. Yes, I'm very happy with my Ns Gau-marked M36 and have no doubt of its authenticity and originality. I suppose dealers think in terms of "moving the merchandise," while collectors concentrate on other aspects. I, and apparently more than a few others, accept the Gau-marked M36 examples as being "correct," authentic and a "legitimate" period variant. I disagree with Fred that there is no significance in there being substantial numbers of Gau-marked examples. To me, that speaks volumes. Again, why on earth would someone sit down and replace guards on such a number of daggers? And what would he do with the removed unmarked guards? Put them on other M36's? It's nonsensical. There are other considerations to ponder, such as the provenance of the individual daggers. These Gau-marked examples are of early manufacture, making the likelihood they are "parts" daggers, assembled postwar, highly improbable. I'm sure the naysayers will never be convinced otherwise, but these daggers are recognized by a significant portion of the collecting community as authentic, and there is nothing to indicate otherwise.

I'm still looking for the M33 Dagger from the 35 to 37 period (when there MIGHT have been left over early SA Gau Marked Crossguards) with the Gau markings so as to use up such existing stock.
WE KNOW that Eickhorn used left over Rohm SS Blades by factory grinding them and marking them with RZM and still see the early double oval Eickhorn TM (I have bought these from vets and there are pictures of this type in Wittmann's SS work), so where are the Gau marked crossguards on this type dagger???
Then, on the Gau marked M36 Daggers, why do we see the plated scabbard fittings with the nickel silver Gau marked guards on a lot of these daggers?
Too many questions, too few answers.
JMO,

Paul, Like I said last night, if guys want to have and enjoy the NS/Gau marked Type I daggers that is fine with me. And if they want to buy and sell them that is between them and their customers, which is also their prerogative.

I also have Tom’s book and overall like it, although it does have some bad information and questionable examples. And I still don’t understand the rationale for giving the (so called) Type I daggers that label, but its locked in place now.

That said, if the book is the ultimate unquestionable “textbook” on SS daggers. Why is it that Tom made no mention at all of the Type “X” chain sets (although he does in fact have one in the book I believe on page 152.)??

Grumpy, Nickel plated iron crossguards are seen with Eickhorn and Max Weyersberg political daggers as well, and no doubt some others if we did a head count. It wasn’t something they wanted to do, but was forced on makers by the conservation of at first copper for military purposes. And with cast iron you could use the same molds and hand finishing techniques (although a lot harder to do and more costly/labor intensive), before they ultimately went to the much more cost effective die casting and zinc. (And as supplies of nickel itself became harder to find and more costly, zinc was more tolerant to corrosion with the thinner plating that they used with later production daggers - especially as compared to cast iron). Regards to All, Fred

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Weinand:
Bernie: If this were all true and we know they continued to produce M33 SS Daggers, where are all the M33 Daggers with SA marked crossguards? I don't ever recall seeing any of these M33s.

So far, the Gau marked M36 SS daggers are blamed on vets and their families mismatching scabbards and/or unscrupulous people changing crossguards.

If that is the case, why indeed do we not find M33 daggers with Gau marked crossguards. Did vets and their families only do this to M36 daggers?

And why don't we find NPEA daggers with Gau marked crossguards? Surely the vets and their families would have done the same to them if this was, in fact, the case.

quote:

You really don't think the manufactures would only use SA Gau marked crossguards on M36 Daggers do you?

Why not? Dagger manufacturers were business men. Party affiliations were cultivated to secure contracts which in turn made them money. They would have done the same if the communists had come to power.

And if they were not produced at the factory this way, how do explain that this mixing of parts and scabbards by vets and their families is relegated only to M36 SS daggers?

To me the answer is simple: it was a manufacturing process at the factory. They were produced this way during the Third Reich.

Otherwise how do you explain the absence of same on M33 and NPEA daggers?

I repeat: On the example I own, the grip perfectly fits the lower guard, the blade shoulders perfectly fit the lower guard and the lower guard and throat perfectly match. What are the odds of such if the lower guard was changed? I don't doubt scabbards get exchanged for one reason or another. But, intentionally changing lower crossguards makes no sense, especially for vets or their families. And even if it did, there would be serious and blatantly noticeable match-up problems. Additionally, if these wholesale changes took place, where were they finding all the lower guards internally marked "PA?"

M33 daggers with gau marks exist. See page 27 of Tom Wittmann's SS book.

Dave

I’m really not looking to unnecessarily get into a big discussion 'furball', and I'm addressing specifically the "Type I" chained SS daggers. If anyone is looking for a reason why. This is what the nickel plated iron crossguards look like on an otherwise mint M1933 SA dagger, where the internal corrosion and pitting (and eating away) of the crossguards has started.

From some of the examples I have seen, it can get a lot worse.

PS: You can add R. Herder to the list. FP

Fred... you keep obsessing about "nickel plated iron crossguards". If you knew anything about Type I SS chained daggers you would know that the earliest pieces had solid nickel hilt fittings... top crossguard, bottom crossguard and pommel nut. The Type I's with a Gau mark had solid nickel fittings, not nickel plated iron crossguards. Here's an early Type I with solid nickel hilt fittings.

Says who? That is what this whole discussion is about - Gau marks. Clearly there was a change in manufacturer's because the “Type I” daggers not only used a new set of dies. The ‘SS Kulturzeichen’ was stamped at the time of manufacture, not later like all of the others.

Also, if the dagger you posted above is the same as the one posted before, it not only has a crossguard fit that seems a bit off. It has some fairly heavily rusted links. And I think could very easily be a prime candidate for replacing rusted crossguards - if it damaged the links to the extent I am seeing in the image first posted.

And something else that caught my attention, was that in the first image mentioned, the crossguard seems to have been polished to match the upper mount. And in the second it looks like it is reacquiring the faded natural appearance of a copper based NS alloy. With my point being that it's actually a lot easier to nickel plate nickel silver than steel or iron. So why not plate to match like some other transitional (in materials) daggers? Regards, Fred

Fred, Iron based crossguards IMHO are a late variant and are very rarely seen. In my limited experience they are always on later vintage dagger NOT M33's.
Perhaps you know better.
The SA example you show above I strongly suspect is a RZM dagger from the brightness of the fittings and the tag. Indeed these often show corrosion. This is most often caused from the acid in the wood reacting with the fittings. The other cause is intergranular corrosion from impurities,(lead content) in the zinc.
The only corrosion I've ever seen on a nickel silver crossguard is from that green stuff, (vertigis, I think it's called), sorry I can't spell.
Regardless the gau stamped crossguards we are talking about are nickel silver not iron based. I know they are fine on a chained SS. I've bought 'em from Vet's families and so have lots of others. Are they original and exactly put together that way from the factory?- IMHO Yes.
Do they sell for less than unmarked crossguards- Yes. Why? Because some have cast doubt on them and collectors are paranoid about such things. As I said earlier price is a function of the market. I do not believe that they are the result of some grand consiracy by people to put one over on collectors.
They do however repesent an opportunity for some to pick up a M36 at a bargain price.

Type I's almost always have plated steel chains. I have seen one that appeared to be original that had a non-magnetic chain that seemed to be cast from zinc-based metal. Could well have been a clever earlier fake. But, when I see or handle a "Type I" M36, I fully expect the chain to be magnetic. However, the crossguards on these earlier daggers are nickel-silver. Never ever have I seen one or seen one advertised with guards made of anything else. As to the polishing noted by Fred, I agree such appears evident, but polishing on daggers and scabbards is not uncommon, for a variety of reasons. Usually, it signifies the owner wants it to look clean and shiney. To clean or not to clean - the age-old question and difference of opinions. The "standard" early "Type I" M36, among other traits, will have a magnetic chain, nickel-silver guards and a blued or painted scabbard.