Chained SS discussion

[Skyline Drive]

.

[Skyline Drive]

..

[Skyline Drive]

...

[Frogprince]

I respect Skyline and his opinions, but I’m afraid that I’m going to have to respectfully disagree. While I agree that many nickel plated steel mounted scabbards have daggers in them with nickel silver mounts it’s not because they left the factory that way. Although I would agree that here and there that some minor exceptions might exist - such as those daggers which have matching factory nickel plating on top of nickel silver.

The dagger first posted already has rusting taking place with the links and mounts as seen in the images. While I have mentioned (at different times) in past discussions seeing boxes of rusted dagger crossguards at shows. I was remiss in not explaining why that was - and why so many postwar owners have had the crossguards replaced. Often with crossguards that still have the original SA markings intact - and is why a number of individuals have had them removed. Not that that really (IMO) makes a difference.

The malleable iron crossguards were and are susceptible to rust. And rusted crossguards can get ugly. In electroplating there is something called “throwing power”. Which refers to the ability or rather the lack of ability of the plating to be applied inside cavities (like the sockets of the crossguards). And once corrosion is started inside the unplated or lightly plated socket. It will continue to eat away at the metal and cause the plating to lift and flake away usually starting from inside the socket and working out.

Nickel plated zinc crossguards as seen with the nickel plated steel mounted Type II M1936 chained daggers can also corrode - but normally not as dramatically as iron. And because the zinc crossguards were a much more uniform die cast product. They are much easier to use when and if replacing corroded zinc crossguards ever became necessary.

Probable M1936 SS dagger chronology, although there was almost certainly some overlap during the production runs:

Type “X” all fittings in nickel silver - early with a very short production run.

Type II (so called) early with all fittings in nickel silver - fairly long run until copper withdrawn from civilian sector production.

Type I (so called) later production run in nickel plated steel and malleable iron with relatively heavy plating - short production run.

Type II (so called) later production in more lightly nickel plated steel with nickel plated zinc crossguard fittings - the most common with the longest production run. FP

[Skyline Drive]

Frogprince your statement that "While I agree that many nickel plated steel mounted scabbards have daggers in them with nickel silver mounts it’s not because they left the factory that way." is simply your opinion and is not a statement of fact. Some readers need to understand that you are only musing here and you have absolutely no documentation to back up that statement.

My opinion, which is shared by Wittmann, is that mixed metal SS 36 daggers were manufactured in that configuration. Open your mind for a moment and digest the following:

1) Mixed metal type I's are often seen. I have many photos to document this.

2) Mixed metal type II's are RARELY seen. I have never seen one that I believed was factory original.

3) Type I plating is heavy and not nearly as susceptible to rust as the plating on type II's.

Therefore, given No. 3 above, it would only make sense that you would see many more type II's with replacement crossguards because they tend to corrode and rust more readily than type I's. We do NOT see this. The solid nickel hilt fittings are not typically found mated to type II scabbards. We usually see this with type I daggers... and we see it often. Explanation? They were manufactured that way. Yes, that is MY opinion. But I have the empirical evidence to back it up.

[Frogprince]

With all due respect to Tom Wittmann’s contribution to the hobby. He has more than one theory disproved by facts and physical/other evidence which he freely admits in his latest book. And even more theories disproved in some of his other books and catalogs.

Let me pose these facts to you:

1) The zinc crossguards were less catastrophically affected by corrosion than their malleable iron counterparts.

2) If a zinc crossguard was replaced it is highly likely you would not know it - because dimensionally they are the same from the die casting mold from one to the next. ie: A totally different process with very few or no fitting problems.

3) Whereas the sand cast (nickel silver or iron) were one of kind creations from one dagger to the next. Requiring a fair degree of hand fitting and work (which is also why they often don’t quite fit right with gaps and can cause fractures in the wood when fitted to other daggers).

We are however in agreement that: “Type I plating is heavy and not nearly as susceptible to rust as the plating on type II's.” That is a fact. But as I mentioned the ‘Achilles Heel’ for corrosion is the socket cavity. Which is a fact that anyone reading who has experience with electroplating can independently confirm.

All of which is why I respectfully disagree. And am of the opinion that the marked ex-SA crossguards and their unmarked cousins. Including those with the markings removed, show proof of somebody fooling around at some point. And those that do fit are probably the result of some selective fitting - having independent personal recollections of dealers (and some collectors) at tables in shows playing “mix and match” before the masses were let inside. FP

[Serge M.]

Interesting discussion. SA district markings on SS dagger crossguards have been shunned for as long as I can remember. To my recollection only in recent times have SS district stamps I, II, or III been considered somewhat acceptable but not textbook on a 36 chained SS dagger.
We have seen many veteran "bring-backs" that have all sorts of unusual configurations. And personally I don't see anything wrong with a Rohm's or Himmlers in chained versions. They are not textbook either but enough of them have been seen from Veteran sources to believe that they were mated by some SS men in this configuration. The question is ...Do you want to have in your collection a non-textbook chained SS dagger?
I for one would not accept a SA district stamped crossguard on any SS dagger. IMHO, they didn't leave the factory that way. And I have to concur with F.P. that many "gun-show-parts-swaps" due to chained SS rusted plated crossguards did occur for many years before more knowledge was avaliable on the subject.
All was done to improve condition and hence value of the item.

-wagner-

[Skyline Drive]

For the sake of this discussion, FORGET about the gau marked crossguards. That is a separate issue and is being used as a smokescreen for the real question. The fact is, in most of the type I examples we see with solid nickel hilt fittings, the crossguards are UNMARKED. How do you explain that? Someone removed them from another chained SS dagger? Come on...think about it! These are not crossguards with a district or gau mark ground off! And why do we only see this configuration on type I's and not type II's? There are many, many more Type II's out there and many of them have corroded crossguards. Why did these escape the "gun-show-parts-swaps"?

[JR.]

While we see SS chain daggers at times utilizing a combination plated and nickel parts, for the most part it's not what collectors find themselves comfortable with. I've owned and sold both Type I's and Type II's that had this anomaly, and also have had marker marked SS daggers 33's that were with chained scabbards. No doubt some of these mixed nickel and plated parts dagger were factory constructed that way during the 3rd Reich period, but these examples will always create a cloud of suspicion on a particular piece. What you feel is acceptable is a personal opinion and choice that others may accept, or not. But the fact remains that when these pieces are offered for sale, inherently will not command the same price as a dagger constructed solely from the same composition of metals............. i.e. all nickel or all plated.

The all nickel M36 SS dagger had a relative short lifespan of roughly 12 months or a little more. Being introduce or at least announced by Himmler in August of 1936, in a little more a year later we see all plated Chain SS daggers that were factory produced. We know this to be true because of a few presented and personalized SS chains that have surfaced with a late 1937 date on them. So in essence you are going to see all nickel construction for about 1 year, and after that plated. It's in that time of when the last of the nickel parts were being used up and some plated pieces being introduced that will cause a conflict within the collecting community. For me an all nickel dagger stuffed in an all plated chain scabbard is something that is very easy to do post war, and we know that this was in fact done years ago at gun shows. " Hey I like this dagger.............. but I love that other scabbard." No problem Sir, here you go!

[Frogprince]

I like JR’s point of view which largely coincides with my own. Which if I got it right is that here and there on a case by case basis there could be legitimate period examples which fall outside normal production runs. But that the great bulk of what we see now is probably postwar. In answer to the earlier response: I don’t think that the Gau marked SS daggers are a “smokescreen”. They are highly relevant to the discussion because they are tangible physical evidence that something took place. The underlying argument I think seems to echo the one put forth in the SS book that: The Gau marked crossguards must be "correct" because so many are found that way. But if we set that unproven assumption aside for the moment - what is left?

Were dagger makers forced to change the materials they used to make daggers? Obviously the answer is yes. What did they use in lieu of the nickel silver fittings? Nickel plated steel for the chains, scabbard fittings and minor components, and nickel plated malleable iron and zinc for the crossguards. (There could be a side discussion here on plating and thickness in their relation to the materials being plated. But the bottom line is that nickel plating is porous, and iron is significantly more susceptible to corrosion.)

There also seems to be a presumption that the available “pool” of nickel silver crossguards only contains those with Gau marks. That is not a fact, and both marked and unmarked nickel silver crossguards exist side by side. And while it was not discussed here elsewhere it was. And there are those who have offered their services for a number of years to remove the “offending” marks without a trace that it had been done.

As to the Type I versus Type II I think I have already covered that aspect of it. But to restate it: Zinc does not corrode the same way as iron which is a much more noticeable. Being a highly visible reddish color with the rust/corrosion cells bubbling out. Whereas zinc is somewhat self healing and whitish in color. And is more visible as breaks in the continuity of the plating, and in severe cases lifting. And the presumption has also been made that they did not get swapped out. Which is not true because of their interchangeability. And they were recycled to be used on “beater” daggers that had donated their salvageable parts - something that could not be easily done with the badly corroded iron crossguards.

The underlying reason for all of this fooling around IMO is simple. As far back as I can remember the so-called Type I’s have (and still do) command a significant price premium compared to their Type II steel counterparts. But who wants to pay a “premium price” for a dagger with nasty looking rusty crossguards?

To quote: " Hey I like this dagger.............. but I love that other scabbard." No problem Sir, here you go! FP

[Serge M.]

"Smokescreen"? Really?
Let's see here...The dagger that started this thread is shown with a SA "Gau district stamp" on the crossguard on the dagger. To me it is the most glaring discrepancy which is NOT a acceptable "variation" to probably 99% of SS dagger collectors.

However for those that have all the "type" 36 chained variables, and don't have this one rare variation.....well you might need it to fill that gap...

For myself, I don't want any SA dagger parts on my SS daggers.

-wagner-

[Frogprince]

That really is at the core of the problem confronting SS dagger collectors. SA parts on an SS dagger in spite of claims that it is not true. Fisher in his book states that a great number of Gau marks are only partially visible because of the way that they were hand stamped. A fact easily confirmed by looking at a handful of average SA daggers. Some are more heavily struck. But a reasonably large number were only lightly struck and very easily removed. FP

[Skyline Drive]

Type I with unmarked crossguard.

[Skyline Drive]

.

[Skyline Drive]

Type I with unmarked crossguard.