UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons SS Dagger Forum 120/34

Hi guys I have a 120/34 RZM piece that I have retained in my collection since 1982. Back then no one cared much for RZM daggers of any kind let alone all of the nuances associated today with RZM maker traits...well I have renewed an interest as of late in SS collecting and have recently had a good look at my dagger. It has the typical sigrunen associated with 120/34s where the runes touch the circle....also the bottom crossguard is stamped I which is most often seen with 120/34 daggers...the crossguards are internally stamped with an H&X...there is plenty of verdigris within the crossguards..the tang appears unmarked...the scabbrd is painted and has nice age spidering...the crossguards appear plated the handle fit to the crossguards is acceptable (considering shrinkage) and all contour lines match up....Can someone post pictures for me for comments? Please email me at rsellick@rogers.com thanks and cheers, Ryan

posting pics for Ryan I hope they are ok....cheers

Very odd, but perhaps okay. As you may know these daggers most often have nickel-silver guards and scabbard fittings, with a painted scabbard. It could be the maker was depleted of the solid furniture and moved into the "plated" era. The oddest thing is the Roman numeral. In my experience, these daggers were not marked on the guards, although such could have occured near the end of the early period and early into the RZM period. On the other hand, a numeral marked plated guard is something that, to my knowledge, is never seen. I would have to be suspicious of this dagger for the reasons mentioned. None of us has seen it all and knows it all, but this example is an anomaly.

thanks very much for your comments and observations Grumpy...I agree that the lower crossguard on plated examples are never seen with a distribution stamp but alas here is an example that I consider "period" now whether all of the pieces began in a union together who is to say for certain...what I can tell you is that the tang is correct and as memory serves me has billet marks upon in( I will have to look at it once more to be certain...I like the blade, I like the handle and I like the scabbard...the fittings are internally marked H X and match....the scabbard has original, period paint as evidenced by the age spidering and slighest of crazing.I like the fact that the sigrunen corresponds to what is expected for a 120/34 and I also like that the lower crossguard is stamped with a "I" which is what is most often encountered...at a loss to explain the anomolies however...any other ideas??? thanks and cheers, Ryan

Ryan, my example and the one in Wittmanns book are also marked with the roman I. I cannot explain the plating fittings though, especially with the early group marking. Here's pics of mine for comparison. The quality of the rzm marking seems better one my example. John

2

3

4

5

I think Ryan's dagger adds up to being authentic and the manufacturer made it just as plated fittings were coming in. The H & X in the guards, although plated, are the same markings as those in solid guards. The "I" is also consistent with this manufacturer.

The 120/34 was supposed to have been made in 1934; well before plated crossguards. The scabbard throat is really flared, indicating late production, and does not fit the cross guards. Sorry, but my vote is that it is a parts dagger.

Harvey

Ryan, are your cross guards heavy? Maybe they are nickel silver ones that have been plated. I have seen that before, but the fittings on the scabbard do look like the later plated variety.

thanks for the input...although I do not have the dagger in front of me at this moment I do recall that the fittings seemed heavy...the fit to the scabbard throat is not all that bad...I have seen worse on late production RZM pieces...it is possible that fittings are nickle silver...very heavy verdigris within them...cheers

A "parts" dagger though possibly correct does not explain the properly stamped lower crossguard....120/34 daggers have this particular sigrunen so chances are that the handle belongs to the blade.the fit of the handle to crossguards is acceptable and the lower crossguard stamping is also correct for this dagger....if the fitting are plated than one would expect to see a scabbard with matching fittings..all metal tone matches nicely...

here are some pics of mine. lower crossg. marked I . intrenally marked H

2

really small pictures sorry for that,,

Although uncommon, some guards were plated. Looking at the photo of the upper one again, the plating loss does not appear to look the same as that typically seen on zinc-based guards. It could also be the plating was done post-war. The scabbard could be a later match-up to the dagger, but, for some unusual reason, it could be original to it. It does appear that the dagger itself is likely original.

I owned 4 "120's" (incl. the one posted by zoza ) and all of them were equipped in "H" crossguards and "long runes" roundel. I'm not sure about the scabbard (it could be switched at some point yet), but Ryan's dagger looks allright to me, only the crossguards must have been extra plated (probably post war).

Every 120/34 I have seen has been marked "I" on the lower crossguard.