SS dagger 1052/38 opinions?

[schönbeck]

Imo at first glance ths looks like a parts dagger. Handle and cross guard has a bad fit and the crossguards are stamped and in silver nickel. Should be zinc I assume.

I'm trying to help a friend who wants to buy a SS dagger.

[schönbeck]

2

[schönbeck]

3

[schönbeck]

4

[james m]

1052 is the RZM Code assigned to Puma Werk. This code remained unknown for many years and you will see it listed that way in many older reference books. The determination that the code was in fact Puma's was made after a tagged example showed up at the SOS around five years ago.
I don't see anything at immediate issue with the pictured example since these are late pieces. Of course it still could have been assembled at some time from parts.
Jim

[schönbeck]

it has a roman 1 on the cross guard, is that really right?

[james m]

it has a roman 1 on the cross guard, is that really right?

Yes. It's the District mark. Although this is usually seen on earlier daggers. Your crossguards appear to be non-plated and should be early. Pure speculation but these may have been left over stock being used up or the dagger could of in fact havebeen assembled at a later date.

[ValhallaMilitaria]

I agree with James. It all appears to be made with wartime parts.

[J. M. C.]

Good looking dagger! I just posted a RZM Puma but it was dated 39.

[Rheingold]

Imo at first glance ths looks like a parts dagger. Handle and cross guard has a bad fit and the crossguards are stamped and in silver nickel. Should be zinc I assume.

I'm trying to help a friend who wants to buy a SS dagger.

I don't see any mis-matched guards/grip!

[RevYJ]

The radius of the grip doesn't match too well with the crossguards. And due to the fact that 1938 was a little late to have a Roman numeral stamping I'm guessing they didn't leave the factory together like that.

[Rheingold]

The radius of the grip doesn't match too well with the crossguards. And due to the fact that 1938 was a little late to have a Roman numeral stamping I'm guessing they didn't leave the factory together like that.

I've seen that,but i guess it's just from the close-up pics.It looks much better "in hand", imo
BTW:TW sold also an 1196 with a roman marked guard,it's shown here:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...24#post3410224

[RevYJ]

Regarding the 1196/38, it would have been interesting to see how Witty described the anomaly, but it's no longer listed on his site. I'll surmise that that's how it came in so that's how he sold it, thereby leaving it as found. Especially since this new crossguard now in question is mounted backwards!?!? It was obviously played with at some point.

[Rheingold]

Regarding the 1196/38, it would have been interesting to see how Witty described the anomaly, but it's no longer listed on his site. I'll surmise that that's how it came in so that's how he sold it, thereby leaving it as found. Especially since this new crossguard now in question is mounted backwards!?!? It was obviously played with at some point.

Hi RevYJ,

Indeed,it's an interessting point!
But i guess you've explained already.

[RevYJ]

Right. That's how some people are smart enough not to get into a snafu like a certain Boker with a certain bench marked Eickhorn crossguard. Best to let the customer decide if he's satisfied with the piece as found or not.

But getting back to the original dagger which began this thread, it's got an anomalous crossguard, yes? How or why it came down to us through history to be that way we may never know. But it doesn't fit the grip very well does it? The buyer has earned his own cash so he can spend it any way he pleases.