A general unfocused paranoia is one thing, but a paranoia for cause IMO is not the same. There is some hard data that the Germans were fully aware of shrinkage and movement in drying wood (and had the tools to measure it - albeit more primitive than now). And with the different woods used in grips, I think that it�s fair to assume that from time to time there could be grips that exceeded the normal anticipated shrinkage ratios/movement. Especially with the later examples as substitutes were sought.
Where it gets a lot more problematic is with grips that were damaged by forced fitting. Here are two examples that are probably too far gone to try and compensate by either shortening the grip, or attempting to blend in the broken away areas. Fred
FP, The daggers you have posted can also be a result of people cranking down the tang nut too tight, thus causing the grip to "dig in" to the crossguard and a flake can occur on the surface. As the wood expands and contrast causing the brittle outside to give. Also I have a vet acquired Bertram Reinh, the grip as a gap due to being in a very dry environment (Arizona) the grip even warped a little. The grip contours fit perfectly and flush to the crossguards. Bet the Germans never thought what the wood would do after 70+ years in a hot dry environment. IMO the Gau marked SS daggers have gotten a bad rap, as time passes buy the �experts� will be forgotten and I am sure the next generation of collectors will not really care. How many time have collectors of TR items been mistaken??? Many years ago many Sr Collectors thought thought the unmarked M36 dagger blades were fake or some kind of replacement
due to missing makers marks! Collectors tend to over analyze relics, and come to some odd conclusions. Textbooks can be VERY wrong and ALWAYS contain mistakes! Also Textbooks can be re-written. Look a Angolas 1980's books, FULL of fakes being passed off as "real". Just becuase it in a book doesn't always make it good my friends!
