Just now I have way to many TR daggers on my gun show table. I am way far from an expert on daggers but know enough to stay away from anything that is the slightest bit suspect. I just loved the source being the vet who brought these back. But, I am a student of this stuff and really like to add to the knowledge base of the collecting community. I see a number of these out there with the additional markings that mine does not have of "Ch.A.W." and a number-letter combination on the reverse of the blade and an "H" on the spine. Just because of that mine is a bit unusual but perhaps of less interest. I suppose that someone could of just popped into the distributor and plunked down his RMs and walked out with mine. But the ones with the additional markings appear to be some sort of an "issue piece" for something or another.
On its face this dagger-bayonet or whatever is period and scarce with the additional markings added but without the markings added it would appear to be previously unknown. Is that the case? What does mine tell us about the others? I find it a little hard to believe that the "Ch.A.W." and the "H" were added after the blade was hardened. That would be real hard on the dies. But, seeing mine without the markings perhaps all the others were marked after hardening? Perhaps owners of the others could check out the markings on theirs and contrast and compare the markings to see if they are different in impact on the blade? Perhaps lighter-more shallow or upwelled less or otherwise different from the distributors marking? If so, perhaps the additional markings are post production at the issuer or user level?
You say that someone got one from the person to whom it was issued? Well, you can't get a better source than that. Is it possible to nail that story down at this late date? Are there any period pictures of this in wear? Sure, finding one or two with Luftwaffe marked frogs is not indicative of anything. But of all the frogs I have seen over the last half a century I am fairly certain that only a very very small percentage are Luftwaffe marked. (It so happens that I really like TR brown leather and have retained several Luftwaffe marked belts, pouches and frogs over the years as somewhat amusing.) Sadly, the vet who had these tossed the two hangers for the two Second Lufts and moved the knots down to the scabbard to mount these on a display board of his. He did not get a frog with the dagger-bayonet so I have not added or removed one.
I am fascinated by the possibility that there may be some sort of Goering-Luftwaffe-Forestry Service-NCO-seconded connection with these. We can only hope that the future will bring some more light on this. Thanks, Douglas Kerley
I don't know who tagged this knife as Luftwaffe Forestry or exactly why but if I recall someone got one from someone who belonged to that organization.Also, sometimes they will be found with Luft marked frogs. Pretty thin IMO. Both the Army and the Luftwaffe had forestry organizations to manage the forests on their land-air bases. There also was a private forestry organization that managed private lands and the National forestry for National lands. Each had different collar tabs and shoulder boards but the same daggers and knots ,although sometimes the Luft and Army Officers would wear their dagger knots with the hirschfanger. The knife seems to be an issue piece in at least some cases as some are numbered-some having two numbers indicating two issues. Some are also stamped H which could mean "Heer" or something else. The forestry organization is quite a bit more complex than one might think.
