I agree. Both original and fine. The SA has nickelplated zinc fittings.
Regards, Theo
Regards, Theo
-
Freedom is not for Free -
Thank you both for your observations and confirmation that they are original.
"Pvluger," if you are able to identify the maker of the Heer dagger through the pommel details that would be great. I will take your advice and not clean these daggers. My next question is why the "copper" eagle on the SA handle/grip. The eagle inset seems to be a slightly different design than the typical SA eagle. Further, is it "copper" because the finish has worn off, or was it made this way? I have noticed attributions to certain SA's of this period being referred to as "transitional" is this dagger a transitional? Does the labeling of a dagger as transitional have something to do with the change to NSKK? Does a transitional dagger hold more value? Any further observations or comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again, Zach
Comment
-
Hi:
IMO, the finish simply wore off the copper base grip eagle. Quite normal. Reading this will help greatly..http://www.lakesidetrader.com/sa.html
I'll take a look at my heer book once I get home, suprised no one got to that one yet.
Comment
-
Thanks for discussing these with me. Also, thank you for the link, I've been to the site before and forgot about the articles.
I see what is meant by "transition," sorry for my ignorance. 
Here is another picture of the SA grip eagle. Zach
SA Grip Eagle.jpgComment
-
Ok, ARMY.
Pommel cap: B-type; WKC, Holler, P. Weyersberg, E.Pack TW p.114
Scabbard: Generic type used by various makers. TW p.120
Crossguard: Generic "A" type.
DAMN! No positive ID!
In anycase be confident that is an original. An original "unmarked" army.
Comment
-
Thanks for the further detail. I guess the conglomeration of parts was pretty typical for a latter dagger? ZachComment
-
Yes, very common. Even marked pieces have generic components sometimes.Originally posted by zachb View PostComment
Comment