For Review: Emil Voos SA Dagger & Hangar

[ErwinRommel1940]

Hello all,

I’ve not yet ventured into dagger collecting, but this clean example is tempting me. I’ve looked around and it looks good, the only thing I’ve noticed is that it does not have a group stamp on the cross guard (un-issued??). No marks on the hangar.

I had a hard time finding another for sale, but found one on Wittman’s site for $1,100. This one is being offer at alittle less than that.

Thoughts? Any issues?

Thanks for the help in advance!

[ErwinRommel1940]

Blade

[ErwinRommel1940]

Scabbard

[ErwinRommel1940]

Hangar

[jancz3rt]

It appears to me, from the available photos that the dagger has been cleaned heavily, polished as well. One thing that I do not like is the remnants of varnish in the eagle. This would imply to me that the handle had been dyed or revarnished.

Jan

[Finngaill]

It is parts dagger. That blade do not belong to that group, there is no any gruppe mark. So orginaly that blade would have RZM mark.
Fittings between grip and crossguards looks good and scabbard is good looking painted one, so I think only that blade had changed at some moment.

[ErwinRommel1940]

Thanks for the information gents, I'll pass on this one.

[ivbaust]

..., I'll pass on this one.

Good decision

[Victorman]

It is parts dagger. That blade do not belong to that group, there is no any gruppe mark. So orginaly that blade would have RZM mark.
Fittings between grip and crossguards looks good and scabbard is good looking painted one, so I think only that blade had changed at some moment.

I completely disagree:
- The blade to guards fitting is perfect, this blade was never switched!
- Some early M33 SA daggers came without any "gau" stamp, this is completely correct.

I do agree that the dagger was heavily cleaned, which makes it not much less attractive to collect.

Best regards,

Victorman

[Matt G.]

I completely disagree:
- The blade to guards fitting is perfect, this blade was never switched!
- Some early M33 SA daggers came without any "gau" stamp, this is completely correct.

I do agree that the dagger was heavily cleaned, which makes it not much less attractive to collect.

Best regards,

Victorman

I agree with Victorman on this dagger. The dagger, albeit cleaned, is completely correct.

[Br. James]

I also agree with Victorman's response to this piece. While this dagger has been heavily cleaned, it is still a rare and fine example; SA daggers by Emil Voos rate #8 on the McSARR chart. And not to worry about the absence of an SA Group Mark (some people refer to this as a "Gau mark," though SA-Gruppen were not contiguous with Gaue in the TR era); only the very earliest SA/NSKK daggers produced by each cutler carried the mark of the SA-Gruppe each piece was made for, representing the initial and largest orders; later dagger examples such as this one did not carry this mark, which indicates the period circa 1934-35/36, prior to the advent of the RZM blade markings.

The heavy cleaning which this piece suffered is the cause of the loss of the accenting on the blade motto. Again, a very nice example.

Br. James

[ErwinRommel1940]

Thank you for the additional response Br. James, Matt G. & Victorman.

Anyone else share the concerns about the varnish on the eagle highlighted by Jan?