#92770
08/10/2006 11:43 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,806
|
OP
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,806 |
Currently available on eBay: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3300...eName=ADME:B:EF:US:2I believe this to be a fake. The makers mark is the wrong way around. The eagle & the SS rune doesn't look right and neither does the grip. The RZM mark also has the closed circle which is seen to be dubious. Is it just me? What is everyone else's thoughts? In the Seller's description, it says: "UP FOR AUCTION IS AN AUTHENTIC WWII GERMAN DAGGER. IT IS DATED 1934. VERY GOOD CONDITION. COMES WITH A DEALER LETTER OF AUTHENTICITY. SERIOUS INQUIRIES, PLEASE, FOR EXTRA PICS AND FURTHUR INFO. " How is it deemed to be dated 1934? There isn't district stamp, although that may not be uncommon. I wonder who the Dealer is that provided a letter of authenticity? Additional photos provided by the Seller:
1.JPG (51.63 KB, 605 downloads)
|
|
|
#92771
08/10/2006 11:44 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,806
|
OP
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,806 |
2
2.JPG (36.86 KB, 598 downloads)
|
|
|
#92772
08/10/2006 11:44 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,806
|
OP
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,806 |
3
3.JPG (51.37 KB, 577 downloads)
|
|
|
#92773
08/10/2006 11:45 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,806
|
OP
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,806 |
4
4.JPG (59.92 KB, 571 downloads)
|
|
|
#92774
08/10/2006 01:40 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 831
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 831 |
I agree with you about it being fake. 121/34 indicates 1934 to me though. Cheers,
Tor-Helge
|
|
|
#92775
08/13/2006 06:44 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,621
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,621 |
I agree too , this is a fake.
|
|
|
#92776
08/13/2006 10:34 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,615 Likes: 1
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,615 Likes: 1 |
|
|
|
#92777
08/14/2006 01:00 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,097 Likes: 99
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,097 Likes: 99 |
I would like to hear the explanation from you guys as to why you think this dagger is fake.
Thanks, Dave
|
|
|
#92778
08/14/2006 02:04 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,970
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,970 |
Hi Dave it looks as if the RZM code is the wrong way round,nats
|
|
|
#92779
08/14/2006 02:06 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,377
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,377 |
Me too. Although I suspect I already know the stock answers that will be trotted out. Seiler (Yank in UK)
|
|
|
#92780
08/14/2006 02:09 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,377
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,377 |
Nats,Not the same pic.YOU have it wrong way round! Seiler (Yank in UK)
|
|
|
#92781
08/14/2006 02:42 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 860
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 860 |
My guess is that's a shill bid driving the price up on eBay.
Regards, Jeff
|
|
|
#92782
08/14/2006 04:41 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,970
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,970 |
Hi Seiler is this the right way!, nats
|
|
|
#92783
08/14/2006 04:56 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,377
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,377 |
Dont get you. The dagger in question posted Aug 10 by sdp,shows a blade with its marks reading from the tip back. Your post shows a blade (JR) reading from grip to tip. What are you trying to say??? Seiler (Yank in UK)
|
|
|
#92784
08/14/2006 05:01 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,970
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,970 |
Hi Seiler,the Dagger I posted is the way the RZM should read ,if ts not a fake.!nats
|
|
|
#92785
08/14/2006 05:09 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,037 Likes: 4
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,037 Likes: 4 |
Both the 120/34 and the 121/34 should read towards the tip like the one than Stan has posted. I also believe the first dagger shown is probably a fake, but a pretty good one. This subject comes up now and again. The daggers that read towards the grip usually have relatively undamaged grips made out of softer wood than the originals. They also usually have the bright silver rune button that I think is fake. Most (but not all) original rune buttons tone to a yellow gold color. Anyone who has handled SS daggers knows what I mean. One more thing... original 121/34's and 120/34's came with blued scabbards.
|
|
|
#92786
08/14/2006 05:23 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,097 Likes: 99
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,097 Likes: 99 |
Thanks guys.
I agree that the blade shown at the start of this thread is a reproduction. The reason is as stated above: That the 121/34 (as well as the 120/34) should be read with the point of the dagger down. Whoever made that blade got the mark upside down. As for the rest of the dagger, I'd like to see it in person.
Dave
PS - Sometimes people will say the circle RZM mark without a break under the M is a sign of a reproduction. This is not correct, although the repros use that too.
|
|
|
#92787
08/14/2006 05:38 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,806
|
OP
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,806 |
Dave... the closed circle under the M is questionable though... right?
|
|
|
#92788
08/14/2006 05:43 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,097 Likes: 99
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,097 Likes: 99 |
I don't think it is questionable, but you should be aware that it is used sometimes on repros like in the top photo.
Dave
|
|
|
#92789
08/14/2006 08:46 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,037 Likes: 4
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,037 Likes: 4 |
120/34's have a floating M inside the RZM concentric circles. Interestingly, all 188/35 and 188/36 blades have this same configuration except they correctly read towards the grip.
On the 121/34's the M does not float and the legs of the M touch the circle at the bottom.
I believe the only early RZM pieces where both circles are broken is the 807/36.
|
|
|
#92790
08/14/2006 09:49 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 517
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 517 |
Hi guys , isnt this exactly the same dagger that I have ? Or am I wrong ? Regards , Rob.
|
|
|
#92791
08/15/2006 01:56 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,037 Likes: 4
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,037 Likes: 4 |
Rob... sorting back through old posts it looks like you have a similar dagger, but not the exact same dagger as that shown above. http://daggers.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/728099473/m/9850073524/p/1Yours has a small crack in the grip above the rune button. The one shown above does not. However, your dagger and the one above share similar characteristics.
|
|
|
#92792
08/15/2006 10:30 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 517
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 517 |
Hi Sky , I didnt mean that it was my dagger , I thought it was the same type. Regards ,Rob.
|
|
|
#92793
08/17/2006 01:21 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,806
|
OP
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,806 |
Unfortunately some poor soul now has to pay $1825.00 for this...
|
|
|
Forums42
Topics31,673
Posts329,149
Members7,527
|
Most Online5,900 Dec 19th, 2019
|
|
|
|