I agree with Frogprince
-
-
Gentlemen,
In my opinion, cross grain is just one of the (many) quality elements of any blade: you have beautiful and ugly (scratches) cross grain.
Earlier blades are in general showing better quality cross grain compared to later blades.
The type of cross grain applied is also very typical for certain producers.
The top quality producers applied the most beautiful cross grain, some have been named higher in the topic.
Believing that cross grain cannot be reproduced is another fairy tail.
We are lucky that most fakes are not getting polished the right way and with the wrong equipment, so the applied cross grain is most often an easy red flag to spot.
Even today cross grain is a sign of a quality.
Top kitchen knifes all show beautiful cross grain and some firms still use the same way of applying it, like back in the 1930ties!
Best regards,
Victorman!Comment
-
„The type of cross grain applied is also very typical for certain producers“
Does this mean that you can identify particular makers just by crossgrain?Comment
-
I would love to... but unfortunately I am not THAT good...Originally posted by ivbaust View Post
VictormanComment
-
So why do you write then: „The type of cross grain applied is also very typical for certain producers“Originally posted by Victorman View PostI would love to... but unfortunately I am not THAT good...
Victorman
This implies that you can differentiate maker according to their crossgrain
Comment
-
IVBaust,
A typical feature CONFIRMS the maker, it does not IDENTIFY it!
An example might help you understand:
- When you see a SA-dagger with the typical Eickhorn shaped grip, you are only sure that it is indeed an Eickhorn after you get the blade out of the scabbard and check the MM.
- When you see a SA-dagger with a dark varnished grip, you expect it to be an Aesculap, but a couple other small firms also varnished their grips, so you need the confirmation by checking the MM.
VictormanComment
-
Thanks for this explanation, Victorman, which already is well known to me.
But we were not talking about grips, but crossgrain.
Therefore I would be interested how one can „confirm“ (not identify) certain makers by the applied crossgrain.
Sorry for repeating myself. You wrote: „The type of cross grain applied is also very typical for certain producers“
I respect your knowledge and competence and I enjoy your threads and photos, as you are a an ardent collector of SA daggers, too.
That’s why I would be very interested which makers applied which type of crossgrain? Please explain this to me. Thank you!
My personal opinion is, and this with greatest respect, that it is impossible to bring crossgrain and manufacturer into any relation.Comment
-
Hi IVBaust,
As you know, cross grain is very touch to get on photograph. So unfortunately, I cannot show the differences here with pictures.
But here is how you can find out about this typical blade feature:
- You need 3 mint (as possible) SA-blades: two identical (by the same maker & same period) and one by another maker. A good example would be 2 Eickhorn's and 1 Aesculap.
-Wait for a sunny day with good direct light and compare the 3 blades. You will observe that the grain on the Aesculap is very different compared to that on the 2 Eickhorns: width of the "cross lines", light reflection & glitter effect.
Both makers show quality, but different cross grain!
Best regards,
VictormanComment
-
-
Hi IVBaust,
The pictures that you posted above are so good, that they actually show the difference in cross grain applied by Eickhorn and by Aesculap!
Best regards,
HermanComment
-
Originally posted by Victorman View PostHi IVBaust,
The pictures that you posted above are so good, that they actually show the difference in cross grain applied by Eickhorn and by Aesculap!
Best regards,
Herman
Maybe one can see already the difference, maybe not.
I’m putting quite some effort in taking pictures of daggers, in order to visualize crossgrain on the blade. And I can tell you, that by turning a blade just 1 millimeter into another angle, the crossgrain of the same blade looks different on the second photo or isn’t visible anymore. Amount and angle of light plus angle of blade angle are just 3 factors influencing the visualization of crossgrain on a photo.
But I will try to make comparable photos, in order to verify your claim.Comment
-
Photography not something where I have a lot of skill, I can say that the lighting (artificial vs. natural) and angle of the camera can and does affect the perception of the item being photographed. Not only with the detail of the surface finish, but also the coloration of an item as compared to what the eye itself sees. As for specifically Jetter & Scheerer (Aesculap - a maker of surgical instruments for the Wehrmacht) versus Solingen makers some 1930's service bayonets from them do seem to have a higher degree of polish than some other contemporary Solingen makers. But that might not really be a really fair assessment because of the different bluing techniques that were used that can also change the surface appearance. Liking the pictures that ivbaust posted - while I imagine that the larger industrial capacity makers had their own blade finishing staffs and facilities, I do have to wonder how much (if any) of that of kind of work was subcontracted out? FP
Comment
-
What bothers me about this thread is that MOST houses had more than one grinder and each one had there own style, so company comparisons will not hold up IMO.Comment
-
That’s a good point, Ron!Comment
Comment