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

............ “I'm well over my quota the last couple days”.

Paul, Don’t you think that my wife has made a comment or two, or three, or ......... ?

“Actually I do know what happened: All the crossguards were laying in a crate kicking around the Eickhorn Factory for months and months ............. Fred you worked in industry just like me for years and stuff like this happens.”

In a general sense sometimes it has, which is why we see the 'Stern Gewehers' when they had their backs to a wall in a war, or some later cousins like some of the the Luger pistols, when the economy was struggling and some other things. But to manufacture a whole series of brand new items with leftover parts of varying quality and dimensions? Everything else that we know about especially the scabbards, was that they were first quality. Why use the relatively high cost chained SS daggers as your test vehicle to get rid of unwanted surplus parts?? Why not with some of the lower grade SA, or NSKK daggers? Why not sell them to a small maker who did not mind fooling around to get them to fit? What do you tell some SS officer when he sees what looks like recycled SA parts on the new dagger he just purchased? Not a good choice from my perspective.

"My guess is they had a flexible press at that work station not jigs."

The fact is that we don’t know what kind of specific tooling they had, and are making projections. But we do know this: Once that crossguard is perfectly fitted to the mouthpiece and attached, the mouthpiece assembly was going to get nickel plated. So they sent the mouthpiece off to get plated, and tossed the crossguard back into the box? Of course not. They did not serialize them. And to make sure nothing went astray (including the top) they were probably wired together to stay together. Which is very likely how they kept all (or at least the unnumbered) NS and some of the other ones together. And did they separate them at the electroplating stage to save 10 cents worth of nickel? And simultaneously try and keep track of what matched what? What do you think?

"We all know that they reused Rohm blades. Why on earth would they not reuse the crossguards as well?"

Bernie, I think that they could have if they wanted to. But I’m having a problem finding a reasonable (IMO) scenario to match what we can physically see, and how it would all come together, without also nickel plating the crossguards.

Best Regards to All, Fred

quote:

Originally posted by Fred Prinz (aka "Frogprince") Bernie, I think that they could have if they wanted to. But I’m having a problem finding a reasonable (IMO) scenario to match what we can physically see, and how it would all come together, without also nickel plating the crossguards.

Best Regards to All, Fred

Fred, I'm not sure I get your point.

Fred,
Firstly, being educated as a physician I have a huge background in the sciences and in the scientific method. I need a worthy source for me to base my decisions on as Ron has cited above.
Do I believe all of the SS daggers with the gau stamped cross guards, no. Some of them are parts daggers. The early ones with painted scabbard and silver fittings and cross guards internally marked “PA”. This type has been found across the country from vet sources and when in this configuration the do have a perfect fit, at least what are in the normal tolerances for a dagger of this period without the gau stamp.
If you are looking for an academic or well documented explanation I doubt you will ever find it. I am sure if you or any one else were to ask TW or Gailen they will probably concur with my statement.
Best Wishes,
Bob

Fred it seems everytime I explain how things were done you come up with a new reason why it could not be done. Now we're all the way down to the scabbard throat and you continue to assume the order of operations and manufacturing methods.

Your mind is made up and I know from experience: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

The fact remains that these were and continue to come out of the wood work from Vet sources. Again do you think that these have been planted by another grand consiracy from all over the world only alowing them to trickle out over the last 60 years? All of it secretly designed years and years ago...
Many believe they are original. I just happen to believe too.

Paul,

That you and others are comfortable with these daggers is fine with me. I’m sure that Tom Johnson, who described in great detail the WW II veteran’s estate acquired  dagger posted on this thread, is also comfortable believing that it has never been apart. 

I’m not being sarcastic when I say this.  But I think that you can probably remember another fairly recent thread.  Where the issue of another "veteran" (estate sale) acquired dagger was examined at very great length. Only one of a group of such daggers. If you take another look, I think that you will see where I don’t always rely on what people were told, or believe. But instead had to rely on my experience and instincts. Versus accepting what I was being told was correct at face value (by more than a few people).  That they still have their opinions is also fine with me. And I can respect them, and the valuable service they have given to the collecting community.  But that doesn't mean that I have to agree with them, and nothing has ever been brought forward to dispute my eventual findings. And I am not saying that they are equal, as one group (IMO) was clearly modified to deceive.

There have been threads where my original opinion was wrong. And (as near as I can remember) I have publicly acknowledged when 'game changer' evidence has been presented. Learning something new, and incorporating it into the knowledge/tools I use to look at things. 

I’ve been collecting a fairly broad spectrum of German militaria for a long time.  And I have seen a lot of good items, but I’ve also seen a lot of fakes and postwar altered items (especially when compared to some other areas where I have an interest).  And while I can  respect the opinions and testimonies of others.  I’m going to have to continue following my own internal compass. And respectfully disagree until some 'game changer' actual proof of the matter to the contrary comes forward.

With my Best Regards to All,  Fred

At the end of the day i know which type i
would prefer.
Regards
John

I can live with that my friend.
We'll agree to disagree.
Good Hunting.
Paul

Right or wrong collectors dont generally like them, so they are less collectable. Each to their own on it, but I would probably not buy one.

Funny thing with this hobby is you cant put everything in a box, so it probably is best to look at these on a piece by piece basis.

I’ve got lots and lots of various and sundry files that I really need to properly catalogue. And get off my desktop, because it's waaay out of control. I was also all finished and done with this thread. When I saw a folder that was hiding behind an old one that I was putting in the trash.

Most unfortunately, there was no notation of where this came from. But here goes: 1st image - a long distance shot of a "Type I".

2 nd image - What looks like a well fitted, plated bottom crossguard. With seemingly commensurate age. And plating lifting from both the upper locket, and the crossguard.

3rd image - The bottom crossguard obverse side.

Comments anyone? Fred

Comments? Yes... what's your point? I fail to see what this has to do with Gau marked nickel crossguards. If you can be CONCISE, and tell us in a sentence or two without authoring a treatise no one understands, I would appreciate it.

I am also baffled, what is the relevance of this dagger to the thread?
Thanks!
Bob

Dont mean to bud in here , but i pick one up a few years back that was never cared for and only distroyed and defaced just about everywhere on the dagger and it had cross guards marked as well and i for one believe it was always that way and never changed or messed with and i think it was never apart untill i took it apart and i had to use WD-40 through the holes for the ruins button in order to get the tang loose. here's the cross guard fit to scabbard and it looks good to me.

inside cross guards

My apologies, I've been out for the evening. The relevance is that it's a "Type I". As far as I can tell at the moment the crossguards are not iron. But they are plated. And it does not look like it has been 'tarted up'. Fred

Does anyone have a reason (or reasons). That they can elaborate upon, why the example I posted above could not be considered a ‘proof of concept’ example of the M 1936 “Type I” SS dagger? Fred

And here is one of two “Type I” iron crossguard examples that I had in the back of my mind, but could not find when the discussion was more active. At the moment I have no idea of where the other one is, which as I recall was a much better example.

In the images, it looks like rust has been fairly active inside the crossguard socket causing damage there. And at one end of the lower crossguard (opposite the motto side) it looks like it was in contact with some kind of moisture source. Which not only caused some surface rust, but bubbling underneath the plating. And what looks like thinning of the overall plating in that location.

1st image - From left to right: the skull link, the lower crossguard, and the motto side of the blade.

2nd image - A closeup of the lower crossguard (and the opposite side). Showing rust patches and the bubbling. Because of the condition of the piece, while I think that it is interesting, it's not something that I would necessarily put into the "game changer" category. Fred

Hi Fred, again I'm not really understanding what you are trying to prove or where you are going with this.
Does this have anything to do with the topic we are discussing, "Gau stamped M36 daggers"?
I truly do not follow. If you wanna talk about "game changing" iron based crossguards or "proof of concept" crossguards, that's cool. Suggest a new topic be started as it is confusing for someone trying to follow. It's hard for me to follow and I've been part of this. I don't even know what game you are changing, or what concept you are trying to prove. Suggest to spell it out clearly and present your argument.

Paul, We crossed paths in our posts, and my original comment, which I pulled out to assess your comments and adjust accordingly:

“For anyone who might not have been sure of whether or not this is really a “Type I”. Here is the “SS Kulturzeichen”. As I said before, the dagger does not look like it has been “tarted up”. Which for so many others can sometimes make it more difficult to judge what is actually being looked at. This dagger also having a type of patina that is seen with nickel plating (a clue: It’s not bright and shinny, and might not be particularly tenacious).

Also, in my effort to be ‘concise’, did I leave out something? Is everyone clear as to what I was referring to as a “Proof of Concept” ie: with plated crossguards?”

My reply: It’s not a new topic. Simply put, “Proof of Concept” in some industries means that the idea (like an experimental aircraft) works. And while some others have made known their own (unfavorable) views on “Gau” marked daggers. I have posted a dagger (or possibly two) which clearly illustrates one of my main points. Which is that nickel plated crossguards were used in manufacturing the Type I daggers. Nickel plating which seems to have had some problems. And in a number of images that I looked at over the weekend. I saw M 1936 daggers with ill fitted mouthpieces/crossguards, crossguards/grips, undersized grips, chipped grips, and various other issues which for me translates to a parts piece, and/or otherwise fooled around with. Fred

Fred, In looking at the examples that you have posted and comparing them to the Gau marked examples shown at the beginning of this topic, there is marked difference in years that these pieces are constructed. Your photos are of M36 daggers that I would place in the 1939 and later made pieces. I base this on a time line that I have constructed to compare dagger characteristics and metals seen used in later produced M36 daggers, compared to those made during the period of 1936 -1938. Among these traits are but not limited to scabbard fittings, types of metal, chain construction etc. So showing a late M36 with typical war time fittings, in my mind really doesn't play into the M36 Gau marked daggers with typical otherwise early made chain daggers. My opinion is that the Gau mark was not a mistake on these early SS chains, but put there for a specific purpose of which we don't know the reasoning for as of yet.

To quote Charlie Brown, "I can't stand it."

JR, The worn/rusted condition iron crossguard piece could be debatable, but we know that iron was in use with some 1938 dated political daggers (as well as 1939). And I don't recall at the moment if it can be pushed back further, with circa 1938 I think also impacting some swords.

We also know that across the board (with all sorts of Solingen blades) that nickel plating got progressively thinner, until it disappeared altogether with some very late items. Also, that the Type II’” daggers typically have much thinner nickel plating than the Type I’s. And that “Gau” marked Type II veteran's piece that was posted. Makes no sense to me other than having replaced parts, which I think is confirmed by the chipped away grip.

So I don’t think that we are on the same page as regards dating. With my recollection being that I did a projected timeline when I wrote the Type “X” M 1936 chain link dagger thread. Which I think was as follows:

1st) The Type “X” (the rarest) which I considered as probably a 'trials' batch of nickel silver mounted daggers.

2nd) The “Type II in nickel silver".

3rd) The “Type I" in steel with heavy nickel plating. Less common, and possibly an interim maker.

4th) The “Type II in steel" with progressively thinner nickel plating. I haven't seen anything since to give me enough of a reason to change that sequence. Regards. Fred

Fred, I don't want to take away from the topic at hand regarding the Gau marked pieces, but the type III or X guards are not really that rare. For years going back collectors have heaped these in to the Type II dagger category. I've seen many daggers being listed as Type II when in fact they are not.

With the early Type I scabbard, we see a time line that these can be matched with maker marked blades and showing early constructed heavy plated chains.

But once again, I would hate to see the topic confused by incerting later plated crossguards on war time M36 daggers and inferring that nickel Gau crossgurds were switched to make these pieces more pretty to the collecting community. That simply isn't true and as I stated one of these early M36 chains was pulled from the walls of a building uncovered in Germany. If the switching of ugly plated crossgurds have reached the wall of an unearthed building in Germay, the conspiricy must be global.

JR,  From what I have observed, the Type “X” is not seen nearly as often as the Type II in NS.  And likewise, the Type II in steel is fairly common as compared to the Type I in steel.  Something that I think most collectors would agree with, so it’s really not an issue. Just something to give an idea as to how many of each type are in general circulation - as compared to the total population of M 1936 daggers. BTW: With what you have seen, do you have an estimate as to the relative numbers of each?

I’m also not sure just where you are going with the heavily plated chains comment.  To me they seem to be relatively comparable in thickness.  With that measurement itself very often being hard to determine because of polishing (and sometimes over polishing). Likewise, earlier I mentioned that I was told it was not uncommon “back in the day” - with trademarked blades being swapped out for unmarked ones.  Only one of the “tutorials” I was given by well experienced older collectors. Guys who were not after my money, but trying to help a new collector avoid some of the pitfalls that they had encountered themselves in collecting*.   

And I really don’t want to bring up another discussion regarding another series of daggers (with various locations mentioned).  But my point here being that I don’t always give a lot of credibility to stories.  With for example: One dagger in this thread having a cut down grip (IMO), and another having replaced parts.  

And can I ask you this?  What is so unbelievable with that first example of a Type I that I posted above? The very well fitted one, with the heavy plating that on the crossguard has gone bad.  Is it because of the fact that it’s plated, not raw metal?

* And that does not mean that some original owner might not have swapped out a blade. But like guns with mismatched magazines, a mismatch is still a mismatch. And transitionals (in manufacturing) have to be judged on their merits, with the advantage going to the earliest production types.

Regards, Fred

Fred, This is the Type I chain that I have most often found with early nickel silver M36 daggers, maker marked blade Type I's, and it appears Gau nickel silver daggers sporting Type I chains. There is no mistaking the plating on these early Type I dagger when a collector sees them in hand. The liks are very thick, the plating is brilliant, and the construction is early, and these early Type I's are beautiful to examine. I have consider this Type I chain as being the 1st ones produced in this configuration.

Later Type I chains that are war time construction, have thinner links, plating that is many times flaked, and chains that were not even plated at all.

The examples in a Type I configuration that I've seen posted, and examined first hand that have been noted with nickel silver crossguards marked with the SA GAU, are match with this very early plated Type I chain.

You don't see a later plated chained M36, with all late characteristics, matched to nickel silver guards. But all of the examples that I can remember seeing in a Type I configuration, have these early plated link construction. I have seen the Gau marked crossguards with a Type II all nickel M36 dagger, as I remember.

The plating on these first Type I's is much more brilliant than I can depict with my camera lense in these photos.

JR, No offense, but I think that you may be confusing brightness with something else. I’m tempted to go into a more technical discussion, but I can already hear the groans of those who don’t like them.

But I can say this: The apparent definition from the stamping die seems somewhat less on yours which would (or should) be later production, not earlier. (Dies break down, they don’t get better.) And the plating on yours looks to me like it’s a little thinner, with maybe a little bit of flaking.

As for unplated “war time” Type I’s, I can’t say that I have seen them. Although I have seen Type I chains with all of their plating gone (and at least one re-nickel). Best Regards, Fred

A little closer look (unfortunately it loses a little focus/sharpness). Fred

On page 27 of Witty's bible is a trademarked M33 dagger with the rare maker of the Puma firm. I believe that this is only 1 of 2 known M33 pieces ever seen discover with this firms logo on an SS dagger. The dagger is matched to an early Type II scabbard. While this dagger does not belong to Denny any more, it is owned by a member of this site. This dagger is very important to this discussion, and I can only ask that the member post this piece in detail for us to further understand and discuss this fascinating topic.

That one is mine JR. Next time I take it out of the bank, I'll shoot some pictures.

My guess is either a parts dagger or the factory was using up spare parts. how do you think?

*******************************************


I think you better read the code of conduct

Hi all,

Im silently trying to understand all opinions + knowledge in this thread, which is QUITE a lot actually, if you go below the easy-looking surface? I remember that a part of this discussion appeared on another forum where I tried to understand it, the process on how plated crossguards corrode? I think I was even helped with understanding that better by someone taking a big part in the talks here. If I may, for my simple understanding, can I ask a few questions? I hope Im not WAY out of line ...

Regarding the Gruppemark/Gau-stamp, part 1;
how'd they remove the Gau-stamp from recycled Röhmdaggerparts? If they ever did that? Sometimes the stamps are rather deep? Not always ofcourse but it would take a total reshape/rework of the lower guard. Wouldnt that just leave ugly too thin too small too shallow uneven dented unattractive parts to work with? Wouldnt upper guards need an adjustmenttreatment to get them matched with the lipo'ed + botoxed lower guard too? And wouldnt it be WAY too labor-intense? I dont know about metalworks, how easy these guards are reworked? Or how easily grips can be matched to crossguards that are off-shape/uneven/thin on the outside? I guess, they could? But, even so, IF the metal was SO scarse, then, why not recycle the metal for war-use, instead of using the guard again?

Regarding the Gruppemark/Gau-stamp, part 2;
someone speaks of a poll? And, YES, that WOULD be interesting Just to see actually WHICH Gruppemarks are used on the type of daggers in question? I wouldnt know much about SS cutlery, so, I wont say anything on that type-dept. But, I read that Gruppe "Sa" is seen much, and a dagger for sale @ Johnson Reference Books as posted in here has "Nm"? What other stamps are there? Or, what maker marks do those crossguards have on the inside, even? Maybe THAT result helps to understand better why/how/where it happened? I wouldnt know how, but, you guys would perhaps? Anyway, just wondering.

Back to reading,
Karin-Renate

Hello Karin !!

That the ‘Gau’ markings can be removed, one way or another, is not in question. Shallow marks themselves would not really be a problem, with many of what we see now being the deeper ones. With the adverse “trade off” of course being as I think you indicate the possibility of a gouge where the ‘Gau” mark used to be was located - with a readily visible blemish of what was supposed to be an untouched dagger being a very undesirable result.

The actual amount of work (with a few simple tools) is minimal - unless of course it resulted in a gouge. And as I think I mentioned earlier. The name of one individual comes to mind (and possibly a few others) with a reputation of being fairly good at removing the marks.

As for recycling, the retrofitting of used parts etc. that was mostly covered earlier. With maybe the exception of one suggested aspect of fitting the mouthpiece parts together (all different) - prior to the nickel plating.

Best Regards, Fred

It would be interesting to know how many people who would never own a Gau marked SS dagger have a "text book" specimen in their collection that had the Gau mark removed by polishing.

It seems there is an abundance of "evidence" to have established the authenticity of the Gau-marked M36's. I see nothing but speculation holding the opposite view. Unfortunately, such establishes misinformation in the collecting community and raises doubt in the minds of collectors and would-be purchasers of these daggers. Remember the member(s)here who took every opportunity to promote the "serrated tail" Himmler daggers, adamantly and repeatingly stating the "smooth tail" variety is a postwar reproduction? Absolute nonsense! The same thing seems to be going on with the Gau-marked M36's. Perhaps the intentions are the best and, of course, everyone is entitled to his opinion, but to taint a period variation without substantial proof does a disservice.

Hi Fred, or Mister Prinz

Its a great pleasure running into you again Sir Thank you for the reply! I must've overlooked the recycling of metal of parts, earlier on in the topic, I'll go check. May I ask who is/was known to be good at removing Gau-marks? Was that Atwood perhaps? Or, am I naming a name of someone whos name cannot be named? Atwood used to break daggers apart to make "better" 1s from the best parts? Or do you refer to some wellknown busted forger who reworked stuff to sell way expensive?



Hi Grumpy, yes, I think everyone should agree there? Speculation is filling in blanks with just 1 opinion based on, what, hunges? Feelings? Dislike for someone thinking the opposite? But, I guess, a LOT of money is involved, and envy, or jealousy, so, people with unmarked daggers don't want marked dagger owners to have good daggers too? I dunno, I haven't been very long in this collector-scene still, but, it sometimes is WAY more ruthless, vindictive, hateful and based on subjective opinions then kids at school?

Sincerely,
Karin-Renate

Hi Karin, for someone who says they have not been in the collector-scene very long,, your knowledge is not that of a novice. Give yourself some credit,, your knowledge and information is valuable, and helpful to the community. Best Larry

Hi Larry,

I'm taking that as a whoppingly big compliment, actually, thanks! I mean, not long, as in compared to (most of) you! Some of you even brought back stuff yourselves from the war? My great grandfather is as close as I'll ever be to the actual thing ... And, most of you have been collecting for years + years + years! Anyway, thanks Larry

Sincerely,
Karin-Renate